Tomahawk333

Welcome!

Hello, Tomahawk333, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Outpsyjah, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Outpsyjah

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Outpsyjah requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is outpsyjah. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:C.Fred, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  DP 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Existence" vs "Notable"

As you seem to be having a bit of a challenge lately, I thought I'd provide a little help.

The goal of Wikipedia is not to have an article about every single thing in existence: only the truly notable ones.

Many things exist: rock bands, businesses, people, snowflakes (in my area of the world, plenty of snowflakes).

Just like not every snowflake in the world is notable, not every rock band, business, or person is notable. We typically draw the line with our general notability guideline, but in many cases we make it even easier by targetting individual things: WP:NCORP lists the strict notability criteria for businesses/organizations; WP:NBAND lists the strict notability criteria for bands. Sadly, WP:NSNOWFLAKE doesn't exist :-( (yet). Note the word "strict" as notability is not optional.

Now, in all definitions of notability, there's usually a line regarding "sufficient coverage in reliable sources", or something along that line. This is where it's important to know what is and what is not a reliable source. Amazon.com is not a reliable source, nor is a blog, nor is youtube/facebook/linkedin, nor is the band/organization/person's own website, nor is iTunes or any type of hosting site - that simply proves existence.

Ok, so you now (hopefully) understand strict notability, reliable sources...but what about "sufficient coverage"? General rule of thumb: a band/person/organization that fails to meet any other notability criteria will usually need four or more strong articles from reliable sources. For example, if the LA Times does a review on that band/organization/person, that's one. If the NY Times mentions the band/organization/person in passing, that's zero.

Hopefully this helps ... I'll be watching here if you have any questions about the above. ES&L 12:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

well, you know, fuck your idea of 'notability', and fuck your line. i make this art for others and i don't ask for anything in return, so if wikipedia cannot deal with my artistic practice its most probably as corrupt as the fucking system itself. don't excuse me for my language, i make my own choices. and if i must make money to be considered notable, then fuck the free world too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 February 2014‎

The message above was written by an editor who took some trouble to explain the situation, to try to help you. Your response was to attack that editor. I don't know whether you will continue to edit Wikipedia, but if you do then I suggest that you reconsider that approach, as it will not help you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that Wikipedia does not allow people to promote, spam, or otherwise stump for their works or products. Even if you are giving away your work, if you start an article about it on Wikipedia to make it or yourself better-known, then you are promoting—there is no requirement for a commercial motive for it to be promotion. If you're interested in working to build an encyclopedia in the collaborative spirit, then I welcome you back after your block expires. However, I suggest you take this time to read up on Wikipedia guidelines including WP:Notability and WP:Conflict of interest, and I strongly suggest that you not attempt to write about yourself or your work after your block expires. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a definition of notability that works for its purposes. It may not accord with your purposes. Notability is independent of personal gain: it's based on whether independent media and scholarly publications, which are the sources upon which Wikipedia relies, have taken substantive notice of the subject. No notice, no article. It seems to work well as a basis for determining whether a subject should be included. WIkipedia is not a means of promotion, whether one's intentions are good, bad, altruistic, artistic or humanitarian. Money and profit don't enter into it, although for musical artists a set of additional guidelines that presuppose popularity have been developed to keep the number of musical entertainer articles from being overwhelmed by everyone who's made a mixtape, CD, MP3 or wax cylinder, which amounts to practically everybody in the world at some point. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm sorry this upsets you, but you've heard from several editors, who have all told you the same thing, politely. Responding by attacking them isn't going to cause anyone to change their mind and will not alter Wikipedia policies. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

the thing is i don't need your help, especially from multiple admins(or whatever your positions are) telling me over and over that notability is something that has to be proven. i don't need to prove any of this to you because i know my work to be notable, and i don't even hope to change your minds, only to pass this bureaucratic legitimacy bullshit. if you are willing to see it from my perspective, you've pretty much been spamming me with the rulebook - obviously i'm aware that it exists...

If you're aware of the rulebook, then you should read and follow it if you want to participate here. You evidently seem to be unaware of:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - which you clearly have regarding your work
• Wikipedia:Civility - which you are lacking
• WP:NOTPROMOTION - Wikipedia is not a medium for publicity

...and you still aren't aware what makes something notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Your own opinion about the notability of your work carries absolutely zero weight. The policies and guidelines matter. If you haven't gotten significant coverage in verifiable and reliable sources, then bottom line, your work isn't notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

soundcloud.com is a source, along with youtube.com; that are used as references by so many of your articles. i don't see why my work alone cannot be verified by those sources. and thanks for the rulebook in my face again... i'd read those pages if they were of any relevance to me... to be honest, i've kind of been bullied into acknowledging your views on notabilty, and to insult my intelligence does not fare well for the image of your encyclopedia. and also, i don't even understand why you'd pose the quandry of 'existence vs notability' to me - you fully just made that question up, as if its a common point of contradiction... perhaps it is, and we've now shed some light on it, but that's not really the reason that i've been involved in this conversation

Actually, it is a common point of contradiction for both corporations and musical acts, and in most cases they tend to see Wikipedia as ad space first and foremost (due to its Alexa rank), and the presence of other similar articles leads them to believe that the article on their company must be included, no matter how compliant with policy or well-written it is. This is an issue because, aside from notability, the other non-negotiable policy is WP:Neutral point of view - which is set by Wikipedia's owners and isn't something that can be challenged. Advertising is, by its very nature, at odds with a neutral point of view. Unfortunately, users with a conflict of interest - i.e. they're more interested in what they want as opposed to Wikipedia's goals - practically can't see the difference between genuinely neutral text and text that favours them or their employers. This is why we come down hard on users who only seem to be using Wikipedia solely to advertise themselves. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Soundcloud and Youtube are sources, but for Wikipedia's purposes in assessing notability they are not reliable sources, because anyone can post anything there. What we mean by a reliable source is one which has some element of editorial control, so that the source itself takes some responsibility for the accuracy of its content. (Wikipedia, for instance, is not a reliable source, and makes no claim to be.) JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

why bother imposing any reliability standard, then...? my sources are as sufficient as yours... as to notability, your opinion is of no consequence

Soundcloud and YouTube are both user-generated content sites. We do not accept those as sources as whatever's on them is subject to change at a moment's notice. (And before you ask, we don't accept Wikipedia itself, Internet forums, other wikis, or IMDb as sources, either.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion noticeboard

If you abuse the deletion noticeboard again, you may expect to be blocked again. Several editors have patiently explained the inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a social network, and simple existence is not a criterion for inclusion. Wikipedia documents per-extisting notability as evidenced by non-trivial, non-local notice by major independent media. User-generated content is not a satisfactory basis for either sourcing or notability. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

Unfortunately, I have been forced to block your account indefinitely for your continued abuse of the WP:REFUND noticeboard, and continuous refusal to either acknowledge or follow the notability and other guidelines/requirements that you agreed to when you signed up for this private website. Let me reiterate: you agreed to those policies by editing here.

As I have tried politely and in a very detailed manner to assist you in moving forward within those agreed-to guidelines, it has rather pained me to be forced to make this block - however, in order to protect the project as a whole from further disrpution, it became absolutely neccessary.

Please note: "indefinite" does not mean "infinite" - it means "until the community is convinced that you will not repeat these behaviours". Please also note that this block applies to you, the person. Creating new accounts or editing anonymously is not permitted, and will lead to additional blocks.

For information on how to appeal this block, please see the Guide to Appealing Blocks and About Appealing Blocks. Again, it is unfortunate that you have personally forced this preventative measure. DP 12:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomahawk333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i was only trying to have the outpsyjah article undeleted so that i could further update it. claims that the article is being used as advertising are incorrect, as the article exists merely to denote the importance of the artists' work Tomahawk333 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We know what you are trying to do. We've told you repeatedly that what you are trying to do is NOT what Wikipedia exists for. If you were to agree to make no further attempts to "denote the importance" of the artist whom you keep trying to "denote the importance" of, perhaps we'd be able to move forward here. But you don't seem to have any desire to stop "denoting the importance" of things in ways that are against Wikipedia norms. Until you indicate you want to do that, it seems unlikely that letting you continue would be best for Wikipedia. Jayron32 14:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Some thoughts:

1. Notability is established based on other third party reliable sources reporting on it. (Although Notability is a guideline, it is one so oft used that it really should be made a policy) A reliable source is one that has substantial editorial oversight that checks the reliability of the information that is to be published. Judging by the sources you are seeking to use, the subject of the article is Australia. Thus, if sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Age, the ABC etc have reported on the article you are aiming to create then they would be suitable as they are major publications with significant editorial oversight (political leanings notwithstanding). Smaller publications like regional publications can be considered reliable but a visit to the reliable source noticeboard is worthwhile to have others check it out. This not to say that one seeks the approval of other editors but to have others double check if you (or whoever) may have missed something.
2. When it is said that "notability must be proven" it refers to my previous point. By proving it, Wikipedia merely requires that a reliable source (or sources, the more the better!) be produced, it is not that the subject of the article needs to prove their notability to Wikipedia as what Wikipedia thinks of it is irrelevant. If a reliable source(s) has reported on it, then it fulfills the "notability must be proven" requirement.
3. User generated content is never (well, almost never as there are some exceptions but they're very narrowly defined) considered a reliable source. As to any given editors' opinion on notability, you are correct, our opinion is of no consequence. Basically, anything that has no editorial control is not considered reliable. Yes, many editors use YouTube, Facebook, Soundcloud, IMDB and other not-considered-reliable-sources, and these in general are removed as soon as they appear. As I've said before, there are narrowly defined exceptions where these could be used, but in general they get zapped quicksmart. The fact that some still remain is not a sign that they are considered OK, but just that someone hasn't gotten around to getting rid of them or at least starting a discussion on getting rid of them. There is no deadline to finishing any given article, so eventually someone (maybe even you!) will get around to sorting out sourcing on such articles.
4. Considering that you are writing about something you created or are closely involved in, the conflict of interest policy is of great relevance to you. In general, writing about your own work is ill-advised as the authors/creators will inevitably be very attached to their creation and will of course consider it sufficiently important to warrant an article. However, what you said to JohnCD also applies to you. You consider your work to be notable, but on Wikipedia your opinion on what you consider to be notable, whether it be my creation or yours, is of no consequence. I might agree with you that I think your stuff is the greatest creation ever but I am not a reliable source. By taking this hard stance, the neutrality of any given article can be ensured (of course this is the ideal, but in reality neutrality in some contentious articles is near impossible to achieve).

I'll leave it there as I'm getting too long winded. Read or ignore my comments as you choose, but hopefully I can make you understand that none of the admins have anything personally against you. They've been entrusted with the extra buttons by the community to enforce the guidelines and policies that have been created by the community. Blackmane (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomahawk333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

obviously i wish to work within the guidelines of wikipedia, otherwise i would not have made the attempt at creating a wiki article. until i am unblocked, i cannot even acknowledge these Tomahawk333 (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you had wished to work within the guidelines, you would have tried to understand them (particularly WP:COI) before attempting to write an article about your work, and you would not have engaged in disruptive behavior (see WP:DISRUPTIVE) by repeatedly requesting undeletion, behaving in an incivil manner (see WP:CIVIL), and insisting that you won't stop your behavior until you get your way (see WP:POINT). This request for unblocking does not fill me with confidence that your past disruptive activities won't continue. Therefore, I am declining this one but leaving the next request open, pending your answer to Anthony Bradbury below. Only one unblock request at a time, please. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, you can. As per WP:GAB and WP:AAB, it's your role to convince admins and the community that you understand and intend to follow them. You won't be unblocked until then. DP 10:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tomahawk333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i would like to further edit under this profile name. i am more than willing to abide by wikipedia community guidelines, given a fair assessment of my situation. i would not have approached wikipedia as a source for my article if i did not agree with it's community and policies. Tomahawk333 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are some key points we want to see in an explicit declaration from you, described below, and so far all we have is "yeah sure". At the bottom of this page, please write a new unblock request that:

• clarifies your understanding of the reasons why you were blocked,
• clearly explains how you intend to conduct yourself if unblocked, and
• clearly outlines what you will refrain from doing if unblocked.

Be explicitly clear in your statements, because you are going to be bound by them. Vague statements such as "yeah sure" won't do. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Are you prepared to recognize that Outpsyjah, as things presently stand, is not a valid encyclopedic subject appropriate for inclusion here?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

i am prepared to recognise that the 'outpsyjah' article, spelt with a lowercase "o", is not yet fit to be published; more work is needed. though, it is music and with further informtion may then be considered as an appropriate encyclopedic subject

Potato/potato. "Outpsyjah" and "outpsyjah" are the same thing to the software as it automatically capitalises the first letter of any page title. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You also need to address the reasons given for your block at the top of this section. You have not done so. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment It is not a question of whether it's "fit to be published," it's a question of whether your music project meets WP:MUSIC criteria, which it does not. If you want to be unblocked you're going to need to convince someone that you're not going to resume your efforts to "publish" an article on Wikipedia about a subject that you've been told numerous times does not meet notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on Tomahawk's comments, the only possible way towards an unblock would be a topic ban from outpsyjah, broadly-construed - even typing the word in the draft project space would lead to immediate block. ES&L 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would agree an unblock if a total topic ban was implemented, with a corollary that violation would lead to immediate reversion and indefblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

i don't mind if you temporarily/indefinately remove the outpsyjah page as long as i can still access it. i understand that you require further source material to justify its existence. i only persevered so far with its inclusion as it is of importance to me, and in context, a notable feat musically, though i can see that under wikipedia's discretion it requires a more substantial list of references.

No, the proposal is that as a condition of being unblocked, you may NOT edit or even mention outpsyjah on this project again. This isn't a negotiation. DP 07:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

why are you offering me a proposal? and, you can't stop me making music, that is an individual choice... i am willing to accept under your conditions, but i reiterate that you literally cannot affect whether i make music or not, whether a wiki article is part of that, or not.

I'm not sure you're reading properly: nobody is saying you cannot make music in real life - we're saying that you cannot write about YOU or your product on Wikipedia ever again, anywhere - not in articles, not in drafts, not in a sandbox. You agreed to that when you signed up, but you refused to listed the first dozen times, so now we have to take the extra step and make it explicit DP 09:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

no, i can read. and i was under the impression that Wikipedia was, in fact, a part of reality. and i did not realise that i, as an artist, too were being put under scrutiny... i guess i am, in a sense, connected to my music, but i don't really see how that is relevant.

It's a private website, with rules you agreed to. Heck, if you cannot even sign your talkpage posts properly (another one of those rules), why are we have even considering unblocking you? It's obvious you have zero desire to follow the rules you agreed to. Trust me, NOBODY on Wikipedia is scrutinizing you or your music - we rely on actually reliable sources having scrutinized your product DP 09:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

no, my sources are reliable, just perhaps not media driven enough to meet your standards. to be honest, i don't mind. i just thought Wiki would be an appropriate place to share my musical accomplishments. sorry that you were frustrated by my numerous attempts to convey the importance of the music i make. nevermind - though i will probably just attempt to connect with some other online community, seeing as Wiki is not a 'real' place, that exists. if you don't like trance, that is none of my business. i just don't see why you were unwilling to accept obvious fact. obviously i'm new to Wiki editing protocol, and it is hardly my art of choice - i don't see why you'd bring the reality into question, though. some clarification as to this would be appreciated. March'14Tomahawk333 (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC) i have been using Wiki since school though, so i'm a little disappointed i received such a negative response with such immediacy. i think you guys are losing out, not accepting websites such as soundcloud and facebook as reliable. it would probably reflect much better on yourselves if you weren't so skeptical of your own existence. true, they are of opinion, but they occupy space on the internet nonetheless. i think it's pretty lame you can't acknowledge their existence too.

Are you actually listening to yourself? Why in the world would anyone accept Facebook as reliable? It's user-generated. I can go on Facebook and claim all kinds of things - the majority aren't true. Nobody should accept imDB.com as a reliable source because it, too is user-generated. Soundcloud - as per its description - is also user-generated. University Professor's already don't accept Wikipedia as a reliable because it's user-generated, why on Earth why anyone want to make it worse than it already is? The opinions of a bunch of nobodys has zero place on Wikipedia. DP 11:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

you can still prove somebody's existence with a user based website. and the matter of notability should only follow.. March'14Tomahawk333 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, we don't NEED to prove existence - everyone exists. Everyone on the planet does something. Many people on the planet feel they do something useful or notable. We believe that you exist. But no sources that the Wikipedia community considers to be reliable can confirm that what you do is significantly notable enough to meet the purposely high standards that need to be met to be included in an Encyclopedia of international knowledge.

Nevertheless, I have humoured you enough: the only reason that you maintain access to this talkpage right now is to discuss your possible unblock, and not to complain about the policies that you agreed to when you signed up. So, if you're not going to address the unblock, we can remove your ability to edit here. Your WP:IDHT is tremendously disruptive DP 12:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

dude, you can't force someone to understand something! granted, i was a quite persistent with my attempts at getting 'outpsyjah' undeleted. yet, the point of the matter is, i created a saga. with music. and if you, an admin on Wiki, cannot see the importance of that feat alone in the context of modern day music, there is no hope for the creative individual.March'14Tomahawk333 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

i am happy to abandon any attempts at creating the outpsyjah article, granted you allow me editing privileges once again. i wish no disruption upon Wikipedia, only to be a part of it's community and to see how it works. March'14Tomahawk333 (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's been repeatedly said to you that no matter how good you think your music is or how notable you think you (and your work) are, Wiki will not have an article on it if there are no reliable sources on it. The existence of you and your music is not in doubt, it is its notability and its in depth coverage in sources. Quite simply, you and your music have been shown to be not notable enough to warrant coverage in reliable sources yet. Quite frankly, you should count yourself fortunate that the admins have extended the level of good faith to you that they have. Blackmane (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah man, i just said that ^^ i am happy to abandon the article... Tomahawk333 (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC) so can someone please unblock me as we've settled this questionable dispute?Tomahawk333 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to seriously consider unblocking you. However, there are a couple of points that need to be clarified first.

• You say that you are "happy to abandon the article", but you have not made it clear whether you accept the condition of the offer that was made to you, namely that you do not write anything related in any way to "outpsyjah" anywhere in Wikipedia. That is a much more severe restriction than just not writing an article about it. Please state unequivocally whether you accept that restriction or not.
• You wrote "obviously i wish to work within the guidelines of wikipedia", but after that, you persisted in pushing for views that you had been informed are inconsistent with those guidelines, such as that Wikipedia should accept information about your work because of "importance" and "existence". Of course it would be unreasonable to expect a new editor to immediately know and understand all of Wikipedia's bewildering mass of guidelines and policies, but it is not unreasonable to expect an editor to accept a guideline or policy once he or she has been informed of it. Are you willing to undertake to refrain from knowingly acting contrary to any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, no matter how strongly you disagree with them?

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah sure, i agree Tomahawk333 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC) i have agreed to your requests, now can you undelete me?Tomahawk333 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

hey, some sort of response... 220.244.174.165 (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no time limit here, and impatience won't help your case. I'm unwilling to accept "yeah sure, i agree" as a response because it certainly does not show confirmation - it shows reluctance and unwillingness. Maybe one of my admin colleagues will read otherwise, but even though I'm watching this page, I'm not yet convinced ES&L 10:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

i was trying to give you an affirmative response. i think you're reading some sort of tone into my words that is not there. i've already mentioned that i'm willing to comply to Wikipedia's guidelines, despite the attempts made thus far to edit articles. Tomahawk333 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

So, if you loaned your car to a teenager and said to them "please don't drive over 50km/h" and they said "yeah sure, I agree", does it sound like an affirmative response? the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

i don't see how that is relevant, i don't own a car and probably wouldn't lend it to a teenager i didn't trust already. and also, who am i to tell them how fast to go? what if they're on the highway? their word would be the only confirmation i could assume, anyway. i don't see how this hypothetical is even remotely relevant to me being able to edit articles. Tomahawk333 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

ES&L gave a situation by analogy where a teenager asks for a privilege (to use the car), is given a condition to get the privilege, and gives a lukewarm response to the condition. Do you really not see how that applies to your requests to have your editing privileges reinstated? —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

i really do not. it is not really relevant. as i have stated, i am willing to follow wiki guidelines. i can see the reason in your analogy, i think, though don't see how it is necessary... Tomahawk333 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny enough you answered my question in a way I could not have expected!

• "I...probably wouldn't lend it to [someone] i didn't trust already" Exactly. We don't give the keys to people wo don't trust. Although WP:AGF says we trust people from the start, certain behaviours erode that trust until the pool of trust is empty, and a block occurs. The behaviours/statements while blocked either fill the pool, or continue to empty it.
• "who am i to tell them how fast to go?" As a private website, Wikipedia has the right to set rules and limitations, and indeed tell them to "stay off the highway"

You took a very relavent question ... and made it even more relevant, and I appreciate that - the fact that you fail to see its relevance scares me, however. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You're also willing to accept the absolute topic ban against mentioning yourself and your products/music? —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, without what wiki considers to be 'notable sources', i understand that my edits will be removed.Tomahawk333 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate matter. All subjects are covered under the notability guidelines. This topic ban is a specific prohibition against you making any edit on Wikipedia that discusses outpsyjah—in encyclopedia articles, on talk pages, in Draft space, or on user talk pages—whether you have reliable sources or not. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i understand this... Tomahawk333 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Why have I not been unblocked? Tomahawk333 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Also, I would like my edits to the 'Outsider' page to be reinstated or allowed to stand as that is the origin of an artist who now has over 1000 plays on soundcloud.com alone. The "In Popular Culture" section of wiki articles is rendered useless if we cannot write about things that have happened in popular culture. Tomahawk333 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What edits to the "Outsider" page? I don't see any such edits in your history. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As per 'login troubleshooting' protocol, I have made a new account - & would like for any further conversation on my account and topic ban to be moved and sent to this account. I am still curious as to why no reason can be seen in regards to my previous accounts undeletion, also - if my proposed article were to go ahead, or the topic is to be raised, i'd like for the admin to at least spell outpsyjah right! D1g1t47 z (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can't remember your login credentials for this account, the discussion will need to be continued at the new account's talk page: I've blocked the new account indefinitely to match the block levied here. The block applies to the user, not the account. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)