User talk:JosefinaJosepha

Your submission at Articles for creation: Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD (January 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! JosefinaJosepha, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD

User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Josefina josepha (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:JosefinaJosepha/Josefina josepha and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD

Hello, JosefinaJosepha. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Caribbean News Now) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Caribbean News Now, JosefinaJosepha!

Wikipedia editor Officialjjones just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This article is coming along, but it does require more sources as a lot of the data/information hasn't been sourced. Also modified some of the structure to comply with guidelines.

To reply, leave a comment on Officialjjones's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Curaçao general election, 2016

Hello. Please do not redirect the existing Curaçao general election, 2016 article to another title – this is the correct format for election articles. Any edits made at Curacao 2016 General Elections will be reverted as this is a redirect. Thanks, Number 57 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are putting vandalism templates on my talk page. Also, I notice you appear to be the same person who has written the article on Caribbean News Now that you have referenced to. You may wish to read our conflict of interest policy. Cheers, Number 57 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you put a vandalism template on my talkpage again, or restore the incorrectly-titled article again, then I'm afraid I will request that you be blocked. You are more than welcome to edit Curaçao general election, 2016, but you cannot add information at the Curacao 2016 General Elections title. You are welcome to read our article naming guideline (WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums) if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, I would like confirmation that you have read the conflict of interest policy given that you have been heavily editing the Caribbean News Now article. Thanks, Number 57 22:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello. What Number 57 stated above is correct. If you would like Curaçao general election, 2016 to be moved to Curacao 2016 General Elections, you can open a requested move at the article's talk page. It's not appropriate to create a new article based on the same topic as an existing article and then redirect the existing article to it. Please do not revert the redirect again. If you do, you'll likely be blocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Rob13 Thank you for your response, however it is Number 57 and "Curacao general election, 2016" page that he is so ferociously protecting that has about 22 words compared with the one I created, which had over 220 words of pertinent and appropriate details and facts. However; in his wisdom he did not see to to redirect his page to the original author, myself; and the page created "Curacao 2016 General Election", but instead he and others colluded to have my page redirected to his or that page which he is supporting and defending, according to "Jimbo", I do believe that Number57 needs to clarify his Conflict of Interesting and those whom apparently have colluded with him for financial gain or as a favor or promise. This apparently seems more willful deception. As I had to point out to Number57, and "he did not discover it out until after I spelt it out for him, that the information contained within was derived from my source as a Journalist and there never was nor is no Conflict Of Interest because of the impartiality that was demonstrated in presenting the information, I relay the truth and present the facts as a relatively new Wikipedian whom hold no conflict of interest financially or for economic advancement. It was Number57 constant disruptive "vandalistic" behavior that hindered my edits. Wikipedia is about and should remain to be about the truth not ego centered and apparently undisclosed conflict of interest financial gainers. Therefore Rob13 I would like to make that official request to have his page move to mines. Number57 derived his 22 words of information based on my reporting so who really infringed on whom, this skillful art of have other user pages deleted so that he can build up an apparently invested interest, I do believe that Number57 needs to disclose his conflict of Financial Interest because he affects Wikipedia and I am left to conclude that all those whom colluded with him also have some gain for the integrity of Wikipedia this must happen.
• In recap Number57 deleted (vandalize) my page which had over 10 times as much pertinent information as his in quantity and a greater quality in data and information and then he redirected my page Curacao 2016 General Elections to a page he created or supports or one that he has an invested interest in. I am the original impartial author with no conflict of interest if I am to understand Jimbo correctly. His information is based on what is being extruded from my report and there is still at least 2 more surprise that I will hold on to that demonstrates this collectivist vandalism. It is interesting to see who comes to aide and reaches out to assist him as well as who are those that know what is going on but turn a blind eye to the situation and then those who are only interested in the integrity of the system and the fact and information presented. There is a rule of law and everyone needs to abide by it.

If Steve Jobs wrote about the future of apple politics, and then 2 days later Numero5.7 admin or anyone colluding with him deletes the page and then Numero5.7 creates a page in based on Steve's information, really whom is infringing on whom? Wikipedia should be a learning ground for where truth rises above the self. that Well I never saw any of the messages until after the incident; imagine tackling all those things at the same time and constantly going back over and correcting the error that Number57 had done, about the warning because of communicating with others and putting my interview questions together and in between the same time reading up on how to deal with admin Number57 vandalism of the page Curacao 2016 General Elections.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

for all the reason discussed above but more because it is the Just thing to do, remember; "The threat of Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere"

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (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.

Thank you and I would appreciate any and all help and assistance in helping to create a better informed and responsible readership based on the facts presented. Josefina Josepha 15:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You've been told this before. It's NOT your article, it's NOT his article. No one can claim ownership of articles. You can either work on the originally created article, or request a move. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As you have disregarded the outcome of the ANI thread and the warnings above, I have blocked you for 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JosefinaJosepha. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please especially note the "avoid editing or creating", "avoid linking", and disclosure instructions. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is running around in circles.

Like before I wrote and looking for my written response it seemed to have been deleted. I have tried and NeilN you persist to not want to understand instead critique the composition of colors when it is actually the painting that needs attention. Let me make it very briefly; truth shall come out and those who colluded with Number57 admin is just trying to antagonize situation. Like I said it before Number57 is in a collective vandalism and all those with him are no different, hence the system needs a serious reset button.

• Now to redress what was said since my message on my talk page is being deleted as well as it seem, how that is done, well I am sure it is not impossible.

For first time offenders, and the system would not and my email communication will note whom I was contacting and at the same time the number of tabs opened, so I imagine that as I was closing them off or going thru them because of trying to deal with the vandalism of Number57 and all those that are and were colluding with him to further cause disruption so therefore my message count I would presume was not or might not have been updating appropriately. When I did get to reading the warning and final warning I had obviously already continued in what I considered was following protocol. The serious question is that Number57 and all those that have colluded with him need to disclose their invested interest and as a result according to wiki rules how can you all edit the page that I created at Curacao 2016 General Elections, even the science of the subject leads in a different manner and a different end point. I guess it seems that hurts his ego that he is the expert which starts an wiki page NOT article, or at least he supports such article, off of "my news article" directly or indirectly or, Like I said before it was me that demonstrated to Number57 and to you NeilN again that I am the author of the article, that is the news article because the interchange is confusing you and you are trying to paint and twist my words. Now these are judgements against your own impartiality , but I point out again, that you disclose publicly what is your invested economic and or financial interest directly or indirectly associated with any article that discusses the political nature that exist in Curacao, because I have none and my impartiality and neutrality was demonstrated from the fact that I had to really explain and show to Number57 because as simple as it was to open the document and read the by line he did not do that. It was I that pointed out the by line to him or at least to you all in the message on the admin board. No one of you decided to intervene will it was yourself to state Number57 position and status and suggested another point but had I would have read your point before hand I would have definitely exited the system and bring this matters to a higher appeal but with the constant redirect and trying to correct the page that I created which he deleted completely on 3 prior occasions. The block was unnecessary with the attempts of it being punitive. Had Number57 waited until I was completed with my revision and creating the article such occurrences would not have occurred but instead this gang-like attack with everyone of his dear and faithful comrades chipping in, instead of telling him that his article needs to move or that his article was not sufficient and should have been a stub and not a wikipage. Is this how he amass such large volume of article he supposedly created or is it just that these are article that he only started? Again I say that the both of you need to disclose your invest interest and expose your conflict of interest. You leave me to think that Wikipedia is not about spreading knowledge but about invested leverages, and that is a shame, because you mean to tell me that no one admin stop to find out if the article I created was deleted before with the same amount of resources yet his article with less resource surfaced a day or 2 afterwards and then my article wanted to be redirected to the article he created based on information extruded from the news article I wrote. There was no conflict of interest so stop straying away from the topic this was intentional and not in accordance with wiki rules for such admin and his colleges to collude and force readers to direction that was monopolized by unethical action from the start like i said it is either from ego or some invested interest. Look at the content, but Opps you cant do that because he deleted and continued to delete and vandalize the page I created at curacao 2016 general elections and had he not been so malicious in the very beginning because I was sending him a warning message and he as I read much later was warning me not to post any more warning messages on his talk page, however he was the one that was continuing to try and intimidate me when it was clear in his first message it said nothing about explaining what was the problem, I thought that's how admins suppose to be. But I think it is hard to be fair and just when there is a financial and economic invested interest. I also know that people this vindictive characteristic to intimidate don't stop just there and all whom see and do nothing are just as guilty. Accountability needs to exist at wikipedia, all the rules for the users but what about the admins and more?

I've slogged through the word salad above. 1) Your allegations of conflict of interest and collusions among other editors are ridiculous. Curaçao general election, 2016 was created first, so that's what we work on until a successful move request is made. If you're looking for some kind of "credit" as an author, you're not going to get it here. 2) Your (largely unsourced) text is not lost as you well know. [1] You can incorporate appropriate pieces of that into Curaçao general election, 2016 when your block expires. 3) My block was very necessary judging from your complete failure to listen to what every other editor is saying to you. 4) If the same behavior continues after the block expires, the next block will be much longer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)