User talk:Cowhen1966

Hello, Cowhen1966, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

I do not have a conflict of interest as I have repeatedly told you! I chose that username because Simply because I do not want to be identified as a man or woman that's all. So Thanks for that, I will some other editors on here and see what they think about it. I wrote the article in the third person so beyond that. I do not know how neutral I could be. With regards to the picture I used as the main picture I was told on the live chat that if I retrieved the picture from a website or on google and I ticked the 'my own work' box then the issue of copyright is solved. I hope this answers some of your questions. Cowhen1966 (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Note: Given good faith to your claim of owning the copyright for the images uploaded for use in Cecil Jay Roberts, it seems logical to conclude that you are Cecil Jay Roberts himself, or someone very close to him. Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, "We have biographies here, not autobiographies. Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact.". JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not Cecil Jo Roberts and I do not have a conflict of interest. I do not even remember a tick box that gives you the option to say whether something is autobiographical or not. This goes to show that ANYONE can make a mistake! Even a Wikipedian. RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowhen1966! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Josh3580. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Talk:Cecil Jay Roberts, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cecil Jay Roberts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Worship at Salvation For The Nations, a non-denominational church based in [[Welwyn Garden City]], [[Hertfordshire].<ref name=About>{{cite news|title=About Cecil|url=http://www.ceciljayroberts.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cecil Jay Roberts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Worship at Salvation For The Nations, a non-denominational church based in [[Welwyn Garden City]], [[Hertfordshire].<ref name=About>{{cite news|title=About Cecil|url=http://www.ceciljayroberts.com/
• [[Category:Contemporary worship music]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you tooCowhen1966 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Josh3580's talk page.
Message added 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you too!Cowhen1966 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
Message added 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
Message added 23:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Talk:Italian cruiser San Marco.
Message added 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Sintaku's talk page.
Message added 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sintaku. An edit that you recently made to Template:User AfC/doc seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please can you not put your signature into a template document. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User_talk:Sintaku. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC) No! you removed it because we are in an editting war! Well, welcome! Oh! and by the way, I will sign anywhere I choose because I have nothing to hide. RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Sintaku's talk page.
Message added 02:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Please DO Not Harrass me with gimicky templates as you seek to make fun of me! Just because you have access to quirky templates and you know your way around wikipedia doesn't mean you have to DEMORALISE ME! Refrain from contributing on my page or I will have to report you. I have not attcked you I have simply asked you to undo something on my page that I have painstakingly referenced. I use the word edit-warring because its a technical term used by Wikipedia. And that is what you are engaing in! please do not contact or harrass me anymore!Cowhen1966 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing you, this is called a Talkback template. The purpose of the template is to let conversations flow in one place. And to inform you that there has been a reply to your message on my page. Once you have read it, normally you remove it but that is up to you. It is good you are investing time into wikipedia. Edit warring is when someone edits a page and another person reverts that edit and so forth. We have not done that (either one of us). ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 13:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not all that edit warring is about that is just a part of it. I am not referring to the talkback template. I am referring to the template that you put on a single editor article which does not make libelous claims nor does it have issues with tone, grammar, style, poorly or unsourced material etc. the article by name Cecil Jay RobertsCowhen1966 (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC) The template that you put up there after Wgolf removed it. In other words reverting Wgolf's actions. Stating reasons that you just disagreed.Cowhen1966 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Sintaku's talk page.
Message added 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the talkback templates. I am talking about the template that was removed by Wgolf which you later put back on. The template raises various issues! None of which are relevant to the single editorCowhen1966 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) article[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Sintaku's talk page.
Message added 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowhen, I hope you pay notice to this: I think that you need to be a little less aggressive in your comments, you need to AGF a little more. What this means is 'Assume Good Faith', in other words, believe as far as possible that everyone here is trying to be beneficial to the Wiki. If you do this, people will be more friendly, and you will enjoy your Wikipedia time much more. All the best, Matty.007 16:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! But I think it works both ways! The tone of my comments are more out of frustration rather than aggressiveness. You and I know that Wikipedia is quite a hostile place at times and maybe it's because people want to do whatever to get to the top! I'm just saying what I've noticed. To be fair it doesn't really matter whether people think I'm worthy to be on Wiki or not! I have learnt so much that this is truly a dog eat dog world! Thanks for the brownie by the way, very nice gestureCowhen1966 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "An editor is harassing me". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 February 2014. 

Hello,

I am pleased to inform the committee that I no longer need any mediation at this time. I have sorted out the issue with myself and the editor. Thanks for the platform I hope I will not have to need it anytime soon thank youCowhen1966 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/An editor is harassing me, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. NE Ent 18:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators notice board does not state that you can choose only one form of arbitration and if it did then it was an oversightCowhen1966 (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cowhen1966, I see that you are new and you want to understand why people have some objections to this article. The key problem here is sources. Please take some time and read this page about sources, it should help. To give you a specific example, in this case, if a newspaper writes an article about one of this guy's youtube videos, that article might make a good source. But the video itself is not a good source. Similarly, a person's own personal website is not a very useable source, either. What we usually look for is third party sources- that is, sources independent of the subject.

You may find that editors start trimming content out of the article, if it is not properly sourced. Please don't take this personally, nobody is harassing you, they are just watching out for the quality of our articles. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS[reply]

But in this case they were properly sourced. The issue that was being raised was that people were making unfounded cliams that the sources were self-published. You can only remove poorly sourced content but you cannot remove content that is rightly sourced but does not have an ISBN number.Cowhen1966 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Friday, I have no problem in removing the reference to you tube and his personal website. What I don't understand is how people can slap a. Box quoting problems with my grammar! Now come on, that is abuse of power. If you have read the article you will not find anything wrong with the grammar. By the way, I'm going to edit those parts out as per your observation. How then can I have the box removed. To be honest what annoys me is that the person who slapped the box on has written articles that to me seem like a COI but I'm not here to grass on people. I am also an auto confirmed user can you tell me how to access some templates?Cowhen1966 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the sentence that says "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling.", I suspect they mean tone more than they mean grammar. That box on the article is meant to go away whenever those problems are resolved. I'm not sure what you mean by "access some templates", sorry. Do you mean you need help with formatting? You may want to start with Help:Cheatsheet. Friday (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean where can I access and use the same type of templates that has been slapped on my article to edit other people's work? Please can you explain about the current box that's there because one editor removed it and another slapped it back on that's what started the dispute and I fear this is going to carry on because they can they have the power to do that. ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not eager to help you learn how to go around slapping boxes onto articles. I'm not convinced that you'll do it only when the box actually belongs there. You did it once inappropriately already, and someone else had to undo what you did. My recommendation would be to slow down a bit, and take as much time as you need to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Friday (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok not to worry, I will find my way somehow! There are loads of people who are willing to help newbies like me. Thanks though!Cowhen1966 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> I have no problem in removing the reference to you tube and his personal website.
Thanks for doing that. Please see Talk:Cecil_Jay_Roberts#Reliable_sources_needed for a list of other concerns concerns regarding the references used in the article. It would be great if you could respond there. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Numbered list item

Hi, I'm MrScorch6200, an experienced editor here. I am here to help you, and please know that I don't take sides. You recently accused Sintaku of harassing you. I assure you that all he is doing is trying to help you, and he is a well behaved editor following guidelines and policies. We use templates such as {{copyedit}} to address issues that articles may have (especially new ones!). This is done to keep them up to policy and guideline standards. I want you to know that in essence, no editor has a voice over another editor; we are all equal. Please also know that no editor "owns" an article, so it isn't wise to say something like "my article", it's usually better to say "an article I created" or "an article I edited". I was once new here myself, so please contact me with any questions you may have. Happy editing, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Frankly, it doesn't matter what I call it because esperranzza has put it up for deletion anyway! Thanks by the wayCowhen1966 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was DangerousPanda who nominated the deletion. If you have comments regarding it please see the discussion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_Jay_Roberts. The decision what to do about the article is reached through consensus and discussion. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecil Jay Roberts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DP 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Cecil_Jay_Roberts, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Please can you not attack other users for following Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies. I understand that you are a newbie. On numerous occasions multiple editors have been polite and tried to assist you. However, can you please abstain from getting angry at another editor. If you believe there is an issue with an editor discuss it on the talk page. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Senteku! You cannot threaten me! You and I are in dispute. I have done the right thing and sought arbitration. You will just have to let a third party look at the evidence. Today, I felt very low and unwelcome but there are still some good people on this site. You cannot have me blocked because once you succeed in having the article deleted, what else can you do? You would have achieved your aim and that would be the end of it. So please stop slapping threatening templates any which way you want to because you can. Wikipedia is not my life! It may surprise you to know that there are more good articles left in me yet. And with the support of some good people on here I will continue to write and gain experience with editing. Regards!Cowhen1966 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, before I even read any more of your message: He did not threaten you. That is a standard warning message used on Wikipedia. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But who activated it eh? Somebody didCowhen1966 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't threaten you..

.. Correct me If I'm wrong! I know I'm a newbie but templates do not just appear they are either generated by an individual or Wikipedia itself has certain automated functions. So far, what I have experienced that are automated will always say it is a Bot generated template etc. For example, when I first started interacting with other editors I did not know that I had to sign my name. A computer generated Bot message was posted on my user page. It had a gentle tone, it was not threatening and in fact, it was quite welcoming! I stand to be corrected though! ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC) It is a standard wikipedia message template, this was a warning for the harassment of people who have worked to improve your article. Even with your unfavourable attitude against me, I am a Wikipedia Editor and I am not taking your anger towards me to heart. I have recommended that your article be moved back to WP:AFC so it can be edited by you in your time, and once it has reliable sources and satisfies notability it can be included within the mainspace of Wikipedia. Please talk about Wikipedia and avoid personal attacks on editors. I think you should comment on the AfD of Cecil Jay Roberts here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_Jay_Roberts. Let us get back to editing Wikipedia. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but don't you think it's a little bit too late for all of this? I am really confused here because I did a lot of research newspaper clippings etc. before writing the article. I really do not know what else I can do. I will comment on the deletion page but I am so overwhelmed by this whole process to be honest!! I don't even understand what you are asking me to do here? Can I just ask why you didn't suggest this to me in the first place? Don't get me wrong, but what makes you think I should be given a second chance? Totally baffled!Cowhen1966 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just an editor like you and everyone on Wikipedia. I think with the right sources the article you created could pass notability and verifiability. However, as it stands it doesn't. If it is moved back to AfC then you can work on it and submit it, and let a reviewer check it and give you comments. That way the article will be more likely to remain the in the main wikipedia namespace next time. I believe everybody deserves a second chance. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Josh3580's talk page.
Message added 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on my talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cowhen1966. You have new messages at Josh3580's talk page.
Message added 04:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowhen, you seem to be under some stress, yet you seem to have a true desire to understand and work within the Wikipedia community. Hopefully I can provide a little help:

• This is the internet - things on the internet are not supposed to cause stress, but if they do, you personally have the power to turn off the internet and walk away. Nobody can create your stress - it's your response and continued response that causes stress
• Wikipedia has extremely strict guidelines for notability, Manual of Style and sourcing - these aren't optional, and are often challenging for new editors. It's one of the reasons we recommend that editors work collectively on existing articles for a few weeks before trying to create their own
• When you do finally tackle a new, notable topic, it's best to review WP:FIRSTARTICLE for the important concepts surrounding article creation
• The WP:AFC process exists for you to start a new article, have existing community members review it, and it's THEIR responsibility to move it to articlespace if and only if it meets Wikipedia's strict requirements. It is a great place to start an article, but the review process is a vital step - it cannot be bypassed. Indeed, allowing the process to work properly might have mitigated some of your current stress
• Someone who tries to guide you is not an enemy, nor are they threatening or harassing you
• Maintenance tags get put on articles when they're missing key components - yes, they're added by people - usually people who've been around long enough to understand what Wikipedia needs and wants in its articles. Those tags are a sign that you need to fix something - too many tags means the article is quite likely not ready to be an article yet
• You agreed to a key concept: everything you add to Wikipedia can and will be modified by others - sometimes mercilessly. Such edits are good faith attempts to bring your edits in line with Wikipedia's requirements. Make sure you never use the phrase "my article", or be stressed when someone edits your work
• Having your work edited, tagged, or even nominated for deletion is not an attack on you. We don't know you, and NOBODY believes you're not acting in good faith. Never become stressed by it.
• Yes, it was me who opened up a discussion about your article. I believe it certainly should have stayed in AFC, and in my opinion the person is not notable according to Wikipedia's strict standards. The discussion will last at least 7 days, and you're welcome to both a) fix the article, and b) make policy-based arguments on the discussion page related to the article. Again, this was NOT an attack on you, it was an attempt to ensure the quality and notability of Wikipedia articles overall are being followed

To be fair, the only stress I have felt is the stress of being told to conform or else I will not get helped. The overwhelming incumbency to be accepted into the community has at times tipped me slightly over the edge for want of a better word. The article I painstakingly wrote and backed up with sources has become almost unidentifiable. All this, including being called confused, battleground behavior etc. is bound to make anyone slightly unstable. If I'm going o be honest, At times it felt like playground bullying and I Really did not know what I had done wrong. Templates were being slapped everywhere, people were coming from helter skelter but no one was offering me real solutions, everyone was QUESTIONING my sources especially because most of them were foreign. The subject of the article was reduced to from a Pastor, tele-evangelist, worship director, to a small time local band boy with no obvious notoriety. I think to watch an article that you wrote being stripped down in that manner and not accepting references because they did not have ISBN numbers does nothing for future editing morale. Yes, all sources must be verifiable but some may simply not be that easy to verify for obvious reasons. But once the editor has not slandered, defamed, or is not in breach of any copyright infringement laws then Wikipedia quotes that you can use such sources! This and much more which I have expressed at every given opportunity has made my experience on here very tedious. Wikipedia has a duty to avoid copyright infringement and so on and so forth and as editors we have a duty to abide by these. I think I did that with this article and whatever comes of this I hope a review panel can look at all the evidence on.Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you take this advice in the spirit that it's being offered. Just as you want us to extend the assumption of good faith towards you, you must also extend that same assumption towards the half-dozen or so people who have all tried to help you so far DP 11:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HELP INDEED!!

Oh hello Dangerous Panda, I was actually on your page a few seconds ago fancy that eh? May I say that your name and page seems a bit scary is this done on purpose? (light humour) Hope you're laughing. Anyway, Mr Panda, I gather from the general tone of your notes here that you probably think I moved the article on purpose. It was totally based on wrong advise I was given on a live chat. I can assure you that there was no evil intention assumed. As for people getting the wrong end of the stick It's called life. It might interest you to know that despite everything that has happened both good and bad I have still enjoyed working on here. I have given all my reasons on the deletion page. I cannot fix the article if I am not allowed to fix it without intrusion, even you can understand that! It becomes hard to do anything if an article has been edited so much beyond recognition. I don't know how or if that's achievable. The article of course did not start off like that. I believe that is why I was made auto confirmed. I notice you have powers and may decide to enforce them. I do hope however, that as a leader your main aim would be to guide and help newbies like myself and not just penalise them because they asked for arbitration. I say this because you are also the one who deleted my request on the administrator's page. In fact, your getting in touch with me is so timely because I was actually trying to figure out a way to stop the arbitration because myself and Sinteku have sorted out our differences. Relationships have always been important to me throughout my life and as a retired individual, I need all the friends I can get :) Anyway, the article is not the be all end all because if I want to enjoy Wikipedia, Relationships are paramount. Trust me when I say that the call for arbitration was only a cry for help. Hope you're having a good day! Regards,Cowhen1966 (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have replace the header with the one that I myself put there originally. Although you have certain leeway on your talkpage, it's rude to change the meaning of what someone else has left. You will note in my comments above that do NOT place any blame, nor do I assume that you moved the page with evil intentions - I state that quite clearly. Obviously, my comments above ARE an attempt to guide you - and most certainly not penalize you. You really seem to have an issue across the project so far with misinterpreting genuine attempts to help, somehow believing them to be threats and attacks - you need to step back, and stop doing that. DP 13:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! You are right it is rude and I'm sorry about that? I truly believe I have brought this on myself by being a bit of an eager beaver. I guess when I was made auto confirmed I thought I was indomitable :) Anyway, I have contacted all parties involved involved and I see how my conduct may have been interpreted. I have asked Joe and Senteku to help me as they kindly offered. I am not a horrible person but I may have across like that! Sorry once again. Please help with the arbitration process I asked for because I don't need it anymore. Thank youCowhen1966 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were never "made" autoconfirmed. Autoconfirmed means that you had created your account for more than 4 days, and you had made more then 10 edits during that time - so the system automatically confirmed your account :-) DP 13:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC) oh ok thanks for that! See, I'm learning shows how much I don't know eh?Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry who are you? And why have you not REVEALED your identity? Cowhen1966 (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP does that mean I cannot make any contributions to Wikipedia if I'm not auto confirmed?? I'm really bored and love writing and working with wordsCowhen1966 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that's not what it means - you have made a large number of edits, and you're contributing. You are autoconfirmed, and all that does is remove your requirement to use the CAPTCHA when you edit - nothing has stopped you from contributing so far DP 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok. Yes I have been contributing only on the one article I wrote. I thought I could help on other articles that's all?Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you SHOULD have contributed to other articles before trying to create one of your own. You had the full ability to work on other articles since you started, and you still do DP 14:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know that there are hard and fast rules as to how to get on to Wikipedia. I actually thought this is the way to start call it ignoranceCowhen1966 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a hard and fast rule ... but how does anyone create an article if they don't understand syntax, the Manual of Style, the processes, Notability, Reliable sources...etc? The only way anyone can learn those things is by editing existing articles - one does not learn by creating an article first, or else one suddenly feels they're being attacked for their screwups, and then get forced to ask the community for forgiveness and good faith :-) DP 14:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've changed your tune? Why are you using words like screwups and why are you taking a dig at me trying to write some wrongs? It takes a bigger man to say sorry than it does to have ego. So sorry if I have done something wrong here. It might interest you to know that I did use a users pace and followed the formatting style. I was actually waiting for review and was advised to move it to sandbox because it would allow reviewers to see it. I did follow notability guidelines and DP you can go ahead and delete the article if it makes you feel powerful was only trying to accept what initially seemed to be some kind of help. There is no need to adopt that tone when I am trying hard to be accepted in the community. Cowhen1966 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? What "tone"? Why the hell are you insulting the person who's spent the better part of this morning helping you? If you want to fit into the community, you need to a) read properly, b) stop insulting people who are bending over backwards to help. To be accused to wanting to "feel powerful"?? What the hell is that crap about? I'm not an admin for power, so get that out of your head - I'm helping you in a pleasant, friendly manner (maybe you even missed the smileyface emoticon: it looked like :-) ). For crying out loud, I even OFFERED to re-send that article back to AFC instead of deleting - so where are you pulling this crap from? I'm done with you - you're an insulting, insensitive person who cannot even give thanks when someone does something nice. Good luck DP 15:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? Are we reading the same correspondence? Anyway, I have done a lot of reading around so I will now follow the correct procedures! I am also done with the bullying on here. I however, will not retaliate by using words like crap etc. It is interesting that I am the one who is being accused of bulllying but the facts speak for themselves. From here on I will not waste my time to explain myself. I am a single person editor who has created an article. I do not possess it neither do I have a vested interest in it whatsoever. I am not a bully, I haven't harassed anyone nor have I called anyone names. On the contrary, People have come in the " name of help" and have accused me of COI, and even accused me of being Roberts himself without any justifiable proof. No you have not offered to move the article to a user space, it was joe Esperanza who did and, even he has not mentioned anything since. It's almost as if when this option was given to me and I decided to take it, everyone went quiet. I will now focus my energies on seeing this deletion process through and in the right manner. Thank you though for taking time during the morning to speak to me. But can I just say, the previous correspondences were quite interrogatory and a bit brash in nature so maybe I wasn't expecting a smiley face. That completely eluded me. No hard feelings though! RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was this directed at me? DP 13:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No! Of course not! I put it there because someone left an abusive and violent message on here. ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry DP but why is the word should in capitals? I didn't know there were hard and fast rules on how to get on Wikipedia. Surely you can understand that can't you?Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than you and I, nobody has edited this page since yesterday ... not sure what "abusive and violent message" you saw, because I'm not seeing it DP 13:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No let me explain, I went on to a guy called Josh's page. He is on my page you can look him up. After he sent me a message there was an abusive one just under that when I clicked on to it it was something like a bot generated message. I thought he had traced me back on to my page! Is that ok? RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Of course, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Josh. As you rightly said I do not know how to provide diffs so I just referrred Panda to his and the whole thing was blown out of proportion. Seriously, anyone can see why I thought it was in response to what I said. Also, by that timeI kept getting people bombarding with messages from every corner.Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would help a lot if you're clearer what you're referring to. Josh was once of the first people to edit your talk page and there has been quite a few edits since then. If you don't know how to provide a diff, perhaps quote part of the message you are referring to or at least say who it came from. From what I've seen here, most of the messages here have been either standard templates or polite explainations after complaints from you so it's difficult to see anything abusive. And the bot generated messages came because of stuff the bots detected which were likely errors. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, from what I can tell the only mention of IP address on your talk page has come from SineBot which as may be obvious by the name is a bot. Since you mentioned bots I take it you understand a bot isn't a person. The message was primarily to tell you to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~ which you seem to be doing now so I take it you understod the core of this message (and you also 'thanked' the bot).

The reason why 'IP address' was mentioned by the both is because if you are not logged in to your account, your signature will include your IP address. From a privacy POV, this is largely an aside as your IP address will be the the page log for any edits you make while not logged in, whether adding new messages or editing a page. So if it's obvious from the history it's you, then people will know your IP address whether or not you sign (so you should still always sign).

If you don't want this, make sure you are logged in when editing. If you are logged in, your IP address can only be viewed by a highly selective group of editors and per the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy which is linked from every page, can only be viewed in highly selective circumstances and is unlikely to ever be revealed publicly.

Also I forgot to mention but if you aren't referring to a message on your user talk page but somewhere else, are you sure it's directed at you? If it's a message on someone else's user talk page, there's a good chance it's not unless the person specifically refers to you. Even if the message is WP:indented as a reply to you, it's not uncommon for poor indenting practice to mean a message appears to be a reply to you but is not.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this has already been explained to me. Thanks anywayCowhen1966 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowhen1966, I know you're frustrated with some of the trouble you're having, but I gotta ask you to please tone it down a little. Several times now, I've seen you accusing other editors of "hounding", "harassing", "threatening", and you've been gone so far as to say people have left a "violent" message for you.

A few times now, myself and others have looked into these complaints, and they have all been groundless so far. All I've seen in your case are normal editors, doing normal things, trying to help you.

Anyway, it will only help you, and help everyone else, if you tone down your language a bit. Somebody might say something you disagree with, but if you call it harassment when it's not, you only end up wasting everyone's time. And, to be very frank, you're starting to make yourself look like an editor who is combative and difficult to work with. You don't want that, right? So, please, help us help you. Friday (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I think the threatening message being referred to is the "NAH G GO AWAY" on Josh's talk page, and the warnings the ones here? Just a thought, thanks, Matty.007 15:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matty that's the one! Anyway, Friday you're probably the only I haven't apologized to and that's because I forgot. Please do not bring up the past because as far as I'm concerned it's all water under the bridge. ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a clear cut example of what I referred to above. The "NAH G GO AWAY" was almost definitely direct at Josh not you and doesn't appear to have anything to do with you. It appears to have come because MissionHeightS is annoyed as Josh for asking them to stop vandalising an article, United States one-dollar bill, which I don't think you ever edited. While it could technically be considered mildly abusive, it's unlikely to lead to anything by itself. People involved in reverting vandalism and similar activities get that sort of stuff and much worse all the time and there are plenty of reasons why it's not worthwhile worrying too much about if the editor doesn't keep doing it (which doesn't mean it's okay). On the other hand, if MissionHeightS doesn't stop their vandalism, they will probably be indefinitely blocked to protect wikipedia, their vandalism is the much more serious problem here. But they haven't actually done anything since the 12th besides the message to Josh's talk page and so no one has bothered to say anything to them since the 12th. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, that "Nah man" message is 100% unrelated to you, Cowhen. It's even under a separate section heading DP 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah silly me big man!

Cowhen1966, regarding your edit at [1] - nothing went wrong here, so please don't bother bringing this to an admin noticeboard. It will only waste everyone's time. People are allowed to suggest deletion, if that is their opinion. You said you wanted to forget the past as "water under the bridge", but I gotta tell you- you are still being a bit difficult and making inaccurate accusations. If you're still having trouble understanding Wikipedia, relax, take your time, and ease off on accusing others of poor behavior. Since you are new here, you might consider being less over-confident that you understand Wikipedia policies better than everyone else. Friday (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the message that was sent to me by Voceditenore? No, I didn't think so. Funny that? One action, 2 very different responses, just about sums up the Wikipedia experience. Anyway, thanks for that, I know just wwhat I need to know at this point in my Wikipedia experience. Don't knock the newbies my friend😊Cowhen1966 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the article talk page? Yes, I saw it. I left you this message here on your own talk page, because this isn't really directly relevant to the article- it's relevant to helping a new user understand Wikipedia better. I don't see anybody knocking the newbies here, I see people bending over backward to help you. Friday (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, help, help, if I hear that word one more time I'll probably scream help myself! Help is great! Howver approach is everything. Regards!Cowhen1966 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this place can be a bit daunting to newbies. Here's one thing that will help- see what I am doing here with the ":" characters, to indent replies? This helps keep it clear who is responding to what. Friday (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greaaaaaaaaaaaaat!Cowhen1966 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know! RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I'm just letting you know that your name has been removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Community consensus is that reviewers are expected to have demonstrated sufficient experience through being registered for at least 90 days and having made at least 500 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you leave messages on a user's TALKPAGE, not on their personal UserPage. I have removed your accident from User:Kudpung's userpage. If you want to know what a revert is, it's at WP:REVERT (basically, undoing someone else's edit, or a part of their edit) DP 15:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Mistakes happen! thanks Anyway[reply]

Cowhen1966 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad idea to become known as an editor who goes to dispute resolution boards, especially Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎, frequently. People mess up on Wikipedia all the time, and sometimes the software itself messes up talk pages even if everyone is doing things correctly. If it looks like a simple glitch, just fix it, otherwise discuss on the user's talk page first. Obviously if that doesn't work you're entitled to ask for help on the boards like everyone else.

Also avoid all capitals.

It's not my intention to just be critical; we want you to be successful, but if you unnecessarily accuse editor's of things people are going to lose patience. NE Ent 22:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on with regards to an article of deletion of which I am part of. Everything needs to be documented in case it goes to a review panel. Oh and by the way it was not a glitch because he provided an explanation for doing it. Thanks! Now if you don't mind I do not want to discuss this any more.Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the nice note you left on my talk page, I suggest finding an Adopter. These are Wikipedians who have volunteered specifically to help new editors. There's also a dedicated for new editors called the Tea House if you just want to ask questions. NE Ent 23:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was brought up to always say please and thank you but that is never mentioned. Even in the face of antagonizing situations on here I still try and say thank you. Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TO SOME THIS MAY SEEM LIKE A PLAYGROUND FIGHT FOR WHO's THE MEANEST OR THE BADDEST. I CALL IT BULLYINGCowhen1966 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clever game some of you have been playing. It almost reminds me of children in a playground who bully a child to the point where they think they are the problem. You almost had me there. I really tried here Joe, God knows how much I tried. Here I was on my page, with someone telling me how much my actions are preventing me from becoming part of the "community". So like a little child at school who wants everyone to like them they try and get themselves accepted. Even if it means making a fool of themselves. But the last few days have taught me that it doesn't matter what I do, I came in as a single-editor and will probably leave as one. I am asking you nicely not to repeat that stunt you pulled today. You cannot deny it because you provided an explanation for reverting my work. This is the first step towards some kind of resolution although I don't know what it is we're conflicting about. I have not edited your work. In fact, I wouldn't know how. However, I do have up to seven days to respond to statements that have been left on the articles for deletions page. If you carry on reverting my work, I will have no choice but to paste copies of my response on my page which I hope for my own sake is relatively safe. RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowhen, whom is this letter addressed to? Is it just a general letter? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I know who you are talking about. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cowhen1966, if you had actually looked at the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts, you would have seen that that none of your comments had been removed in the various reversions, despite the technical glitches (probably caused by edit conflicts). When you posted this angry message, they were all there. You then made this edit in which you simply added your signature in the middle of a word in someone else's comment, a mistake which was quite rightly undone. You then followed that with yet another angry comment, despite the fact that your comments were still there. Let me reiterate, at no point were your comments removed from the discussion. They are all still there. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they are NOT still there. Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a whitespace from your comment above. You've already been told twice on this page how to WP:indent, one time directly one time with a link. I've provided a link again. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blunt with you. Unless you can find a diff of the comment you claim is missing, or at least describe what you said, no one is likely to believe any of your comments are missing. So far you record includes confusing the article talk page with the AFD [2], inserting your signature in the middle of someone else's comment, thinking a message on someone else's talk page under a new subject heading was directed at you, replying on someone's user page rather than their talk page, extremely confusing replying formats and other stuff which suggests your competence in wikipedia matters is not particularly high. You also keep yelling at people and making spurious and unnecessary accusations which never wins friends. Looking at the AFD, there are about 20 edits from you there so it wouldn't even be that hard to check, although enough that I'm not sure if anyone will bother. And so you really need to calm down, or people patience with you is going to run out. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, there's no use him checking because he will not find any deleted comments, and he knows that. I know, because I personally checked every single one of his edits to the AfD page when he started making those accusations and shouting at all and sundry. As I said there, the sum total of changes to his comments consists of the inadvertent removal of the phrase "at worst" from one of them by two editors [3] [4] acting in good faith who mistakenly thought they were undoing this edit in which Cowhen1966 added his signature in the middle of someone else's comment. Voceditenore (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had strong doubts any of their comments were removed but wasn't sure anyone had checked that well or whether they just investigated the reversion thing. If you did check, then Cowhen1966 needs to either describe what he think was removed or drop the issue (ideally with a proper apology). If he describes what he thinks was removed, perhaps people could demonstrate it's still there whereever there is. I noticed some of their comments were moved around [5] which is to be expected considering the way they seem to place their comments at random location but could be a cause of confusion. The other alternative if we keep WP:AGF, is that Cowhen1966 simply failed to actually save their comment. Considering the level of competence demonstrated thus far, this wouldn't surprise me. Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> The other alternative if we keep WP:AGF, is that Cowhen1966 simply failed to actually save their comment.

I agree. Another possibility is he saved them somewhere else (the article talk page? This talk page?) and is confused. I think it is reasonable to separate the editor's competence from the value of keeping the article. Comments regarding the latter will, of course, be limited to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_Jay_Roberts. As for the former, I think everyone is acting with an ample helping of good faith, although the author seems to not accept that. C'est la vie. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Yes the possibility the OP saved the comment to somewhere else also occured to me, one of the reasons I suggested they described what they allege was deleted. So these could perhaps be found. But the OP doesn't seem interested in that. Which isn't the first time they failed to offer any real clue of what they were referring to despite repeated accusations by them, e.g. it took someone else to point out the comment on Josh's page they were apparently complaining about and they never seemed to explain the IP address thing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yada yada yadaCowhen1966 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowhen1966, just wanted to offer a few tips for Wikipedia in general, and the Cecil Roberts AFD specifically.

A few things you should try to avoid:

• Playing the victim, throwing around accusations of poor behavior by others
• Being dismissive of those who are trying to help you understand Wikipedia practices, while being over-confident (and usually mistaken) that you already understand them well.
• Huge walls of text
• any excessively lawyerish approach. Wikipedia has typical practices, more than it has firm rules. Arguing the letter of the rules will not be productive.

Specifically, you may want to prepare yourself for the possibility that your article will be deleted. The deletion discussion will be concluding fairly soon. If it is deleted, one thing you might consider is writing about this guy in another venue. It's even possible that material you write elsewhere (another website, newspaper, book, whatever) could even be used as a source on Wikipedia in the future. Assuming it gets published by a reliable source, of course. Anyway, good luck, and please don't take it personally if this article gets deleted. Friday (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fiday for your continued advice but no thanks. Because even if it is deleted that is never the end. May I remind you that articles are NEVER deleted into oblivion. Maybe it may actually be a good thing because then I could actually get the right people to look at it. There's actually a cryptic message in there but I won't bother to explain it to you because it might all just go over your head. Please, this is by no means the end of this matter even if it gets deleted ( and thanks for the inside info. I must say, the last few weeks has seemed like I've been dealing with the mafia. Have a nice life Friday.Cowhen1966 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC) oh and may I just add that Wikipedia did get lawyers to write out all those excessive policies and guidelines so if one if following it to the "letter" then it would sound lawyerish wouldn'tit? As for the spirit of the article it doesn't take a genius to pick up on that. You get that by just reading the article. Unlike you, I do sleep at night because I don't worry at all. That is why I can take the mick out of myself. May I also inform you that contrary to what you may believe, I am not getting paid for this article and I don't represent Roberts. But then in future, that wouldn't matter because there's currently a debate going on that people who represent articles may have to declare their earnings. It's all very exciting isn't it the future of Wikipedia! You and I may soon be out of a job ha ha! Just joking! No need to get your folks to come and hound my talk page. I'm even running out of pace now gosh!Cowhen1966 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! If I didn't know better I would have thought that some of you have something against Africans or Christians! It's all very bizarre! But never mind! Let's wait for the outcome of the discussion. They will always provide a reason and Hopefully. It would be impartial. But if not like you're insinuating there are always platforms where articles are looked at impartially. Good luck for the futureCowhen1966 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC) I wonder what the hidden category is on this page?hmmmm?Cowhen1966 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of help to you, in your endeavors. Enjoy. Friday (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Quack quack quack quack quack quackCowhen1966 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cowhen1966! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Suicide response}}ZappaOMati 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Sorry who are you?Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am ZappaOMati. I saw your message at WP:ANI (this), and while reading through it, I saw you write, "I am pensioner who does not need this and I fear if something is not done about this Wikipedia may have its first case of suicide." Because of this, I'm worried you'll actually stick to doing this, so I am hoping to keep you from doing so, for your own good. ZappaOMati 22:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my friend! Maybe that way the bullying will STOP!Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Are you the one who is going to get back to me with regards to my complaint? What happens now?Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)You know, I didn't stop to tell you how much those words were of comfort to me - and I appreciate that. I need to let you know that one way to stand up to bullies is to report it and I have done that. So do not worry about me. I have loads of children and grand children that I need to stick around for and I certainly won't do anything stupid. This is what bullying can do. A momemt of weakness where you let their actions get to you and you might just say something that you would not normally have said had the situation been different. I only fear that if these kind of practices are allowed to carry on, then it can lead to some detrimental results. That person may not be as old as me to know what to do.Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make a specific section on my Talk Page, click on the "New Section" on TOP of my own Talk Page. Then a new window pops up, where you can make a title, and leave your message there. I look forward to that you can place your grievances, in whichever order you please there (but, as I am sure you recognize, I will retain my "right" to make my own view!). Just to begin with, though. I am rather puzzled that your article is nominated for deletion, since he seems to be quite a well-known character in Ghana, I am not initially understanding why Cecil Ray Jones shouldn't have his own page. But, all in due order; just create that sub-section on my Talk Page, and you'll have a sympathetic (but independent!) ear. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC) thank you so much! My point exactly. You know I was thinking about what has gone on over the past couple of weeks and I am dismayed by everything. But take heart because this WILL end well. The facts will speak for themselves. Shall I say I've made a new friend? Thanks for standing up so boldly on that discussion pge. Wikipedia can be a funny place where people are often times afraid to take a stand lest they fall out with the "community". So for that I am greatful. But can we talk about anything else apart from this? I have done what Wikipedia has asked us to do to try and achieve reconciliation- and I continue to use that route. Have a splendid day my friend (:Cowhen1966 (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WE can talk about whatever you like, Cowhen, either here or on my own talk page. And, remember, there is no deadline at Wikipedia, so whenever you wish, return to those topics that have dismayed you. Consider me your friend. But right now, I'm off to bed, so I won't respond for a few hours (time is AM 2.30 here in Oslo). So long, my friend, we'lk talk again!Arildnordby (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC) So long my friend!Cowhen1966 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowhen, it looks like I caused unintentional offense with my comment here - I just wanted to say, sorry, I didn't mean to. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, yes, but I was not poking fun at anybody's religion. I was trying to poke fun at the length of the AFD, and gently suggest that people stay concise and on-topic. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding, no offense meant. Friday (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts correctly, you deny any connection to the subject. That being the case, can you please nominate Commons:File:Cecil Jay Roberts 3.jpg for deletion? As if you are not connected to Cecil Jay Roberts/Cecil Anang, I don't see how you can be the copyright holder of this image. To nominate the file for deletion, visit the link to the file I provided above and click, look at the list of links on the left and under 'Tools' you should see 'Nominate for deletion'. For the reason, explain that you misunderstood what you were doing when you asserted that you were the copyright holder for the image and it was your 'own work'. If you still can't work out how to nominate the file for deletion, reply here confirming that you are not the copyright holder and I will nominate it for you. If you are the copyright holder and it is your 'own work', you will need to explain how this is possible if you have no connection to the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested deletion commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cecil_Jay_Roberts_3.jpg. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 00:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is to inform you that, per the discussion on ANI, you have been blocked from editing. I hope you decide to return to editing after the week is over, but if you do please do not attack other users or make accusations without evidence. If you need help getting started, just ask me or check Help:Getting started for some pointers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowhen: You are not the only editor experiencing a block. I had one 48-hour block myself recently. Do NOT feel that this is "the end" (it isn't!), and remember that you still can write here at you Talk Page during the ban. If you'd like an outside, friendly view on topics like your article, the manner in which you feel it has been treated, or you have been treated, or anything else, just do that. I have no connections with the editors you have been in altercations with (just check my contributions), but in locked human relations, it can often be valuable to get an univolved input, isn't it? That's how I offer my help to you here. I won't automatically take sides (and have NOT as yet, read anything of the particular disputes, I'll do that if you ask me to!). I hope to hear from you, friend.Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your block only applies here on wikipedia. You are still welcome to contribute to the Wikimedia Commons provided you follow their rules (and they also require you assume good faith). So you should feel free to nominate the image for deletion there despite the block here. And perhaps contributing to the different environment will help, although I suggest you avoid the sort of behaviour that got your in trouble here. Also as Arildnordby said, you can also still comment here on your talk page, within reason. So if you're unable to nominate the image, confirming that you are not the copyright holder here would still be okay in itself. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has nominated the image in the meantime. You may want to comment here Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cecil Jay Roberts 3.jpg confirming that you are not the copyright holder, as the AFD discussion for the article where you said you had no connection to Cecil Jay Roberts/Cecil Anang is a bit long and confusing. So it will be easier for the closer of the image deletion discussion if they have a simple confirmation from you. Nil Einne (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you learned your lesson. Never go to ANI and complain about bullying because once you name names, then its a personal attack and blockable. This is endemnic of the problems on Wikipedia. People are bullied and no one does anything. Then when they get completely frustrated by the lack of action they take it to ANI hoping it will be dealt with and they get blocked for the trouble. Its better just to stop editing and find something else to do with your time. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous thing to say, Mr/Mrs IP. The lesson is "learn what bullying is and is not". We admins do and will block bullies. But calling someone a bully who didn't do an ounce of bullying is, indeed, a personal attack. DP 19:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is Kumioko [6] [7] [8]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cowhen1966!

I hope we two can discuss in this subsection issues that, as they occur to you, is felt by you at that time to be important to you. Now, to be absolutely honest, I will only rspond in ways I feel wholly agreeing to personally. That means I will NOT be an "uncritical" audience to you, NOR however, equally importantly to me will I try to "defend" various editors' behaviour towards you. I will do my best to give my own independent, committed, personal and honest view on whichever topic you'd like to rise. And I'll do that by presenting those reasons I find most compelling. I hope to hear from you, friend! Arildnordby (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cowhen1966:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]