User talk:Mary Cummins

Please do not bring your dispute with user:Batworld onto Wikipedia. Thank you. DS (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

She posted those untrue items about me June 2012. I just saw it yesterday and corrected it. Since you will not be allowing her to repost anything about legal issues on the Bat World Sanctuary page, we should be fine. Thank you for your help with this matter. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User page

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note on this page. As an alternative, you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. Thank you. --Drm310 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I visited the user page guidelines. It says "User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content." I have posted "limited autobiographical and personal content." I will add info about my wiki activities. Thank you.Mary Cummins (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is that it is structured in a way that makes it look like a mainspace article (see WP:FAKEARTICLE), and/or looks like a draft for an article about yourself. User pages typically don't have the same layout as pages in the article space (e.g. References, External links, etc.) or use citations.

I'd add this to the top of the page to clear up any confusion:{{userpage (rounded)|noindex=yes}}

Using {{Infobox user}} instead of {{Infobox person}} might also make it clear that it's a user page and not an autobiographical article. Hope that helps. --Drm310 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I made all of the changes you suggested. Thank you. Mary Cummins (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I clicked "submit" as I was instructed. It said I just submitted my user page as an article. That's not what I wanted to do. How do I undo this? Thanks. Mary Cummins (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh drat... I should have removed that template. That was my fault, sorry. I don't see yours listed on the Articles for Creation page, so I wouldn't worry about it for now. --Drm310 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the template. I don't want to write an article about myself. Thanks! Mary Cummins (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Administrative Noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blocking a user. Thank you. Glrx (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

I have blocked you indefinitely (NOT permanently) until you can assure us that you will not edit Bat World Sanctuary while you are involved in ongoing legal action. You can appeal this block by following the instructions above. It will suffice if you assure us that you will not edit the article further for the time being. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not edit Bat World Sanctuary page is you also instruct Amanda Lollar, user Batworld and her IP sock puppet not to edit it. She is involved in the same litigation. She defamed me on her page. Someone also posted the false items again. They are not the largest bat sanctuary in the world. That is Monfort Bat Sanctuary with 1.8 - 2.5 million bats. They hold the Guinness World Record. Even the Memphis zoo has a larger bat sanctuary with over 400 bats. Thank you. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just butting in here, but you should state that you will unequoviocally not edit the article regardless of what other editors promise to do or your block will not be lifted. Rest assured that this article now has sufficient eyes upon it. Any issues you have with the article may be addressed in the talk page of the article,or you may ask OTRS via email.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not edit the article regardless of what other editors promise to do. I can still post on the talk page for the article? Will do. I'm sorry but this person has been running a sham for over 18 years. She hasn't gone past the ninth grade, is not a veterinarian yet performs surgery on bats who die. I witnessed this, took photos and videos which is why I reported her to authorities. She is not a scholar or scientist as she posts. Almost every positive thing written about her she wrote herself. Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary are NOT respected by the true bat experts which would be Bat Conservation International. Thanks. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would personally not be happy with you editing any page on Wikipedia (including project pages or talk pages) to discuss Bat World, Amanda Lollar, your lawsuit or any connected topic. You must stop furthering your claims about her here as part of your unblock requests. If other admins see this more leniently so be it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will not edit any page about Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary or mention them in any other page on wiki. Hopefully the admins will make her do the same. This woman has posted about me all over the Internet. She made over 40 websites, blogs, Twitter ... devoted just to me. I only comment about her in my own website. Thanks. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are unblocked, please tread carefully about commenting on Lollar and other people anywhere on wikipedia, including talk pages. See WP:BLP. In any case it is probably best that you avoid this article as much as possible. I will personally watch this page for the removal of sourced and addition of unsourced material if that makes you feel any better. If you have any immediate issues concerning this article, you can always contact OTRS via email and they might be able to address your concerns.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Throwing my tuppence in - as Kim has mentioned, many more editors are now looking at this conflict since it has been posted on WP:ANI. My advice is simple - do not do anything involving Bat World Sanctuary, even tangentially, anywhere on Wikipedia, including talking about it your own talk page. If you can agree to that, your unblock request will have more success. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I will not post about Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary on wikipedia. I will not post on the Bat World Sanctuary page but was told I can comment on the talk page. Hopefully she will not post about me on Wikipedia in any of her user names. Thanks. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

{{subst:Thank you for this commitment, however I thin it would be unwise to edit the article talk page as well. Please agree that you will not edit the talk page either and I will unblock. Please don't make sockpuppetry claims in unblock requests, there is a proper forum and procedure for this.}} Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:02, 27 November 2012 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I agree not to post on wiki page Bat World Sanctuary. I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki. I also agree not to post on the talk page for Bat World Sanctuary. Mary Cummins (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

User agrees not to use Wikipedia to pursue this dispute. Please be assured that all these pages are now closely watched. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not allowed to post on Bat World Sanctuary's wiki page or talk page. Can I post on the deletion page here? [1] or my talk page here? I would be for deletion. Mary Cummins (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Above you stated "I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki." The posts at AfD would be about BWS. Glrx (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Glrx's view above. There will be plenty of people commenting there. No need to get a further block by joining them. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone just added the lawsuit information back to the BWS page. I thought you were not going to allow any mention of any lawsuits between me and Bat World? Mary Cummins (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mary. I'm sure someone will be along to clarify this in a moment. In the meantime, please could you specify where that was said?

Until that's cleared up, please adhere to what you agreed to above. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I've just trimmed the recent additions to the BWS page, since I see no purpose in naming the person apparently involved.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was told that NO ONE could mention anything about ANY lawsuits on Wikipedia. If one is allowed to mention a lawsuit, someone else should be allowed to mention the countersuits and appeal. Mary Cummins (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary, it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Things get added without editorial oversight. When they do come up, they should be removed. However, that's not for you to do. Please tell someone, and do not return to editing that article.--v/r - TP 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, editors are allowed to cover pending lawsuits if there are appropriate independent and reliable sources. One interpretation of WP:NLT is that the litigants in a currently active lawsuit are not to edit WP. ("If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.") WP does not want to become a second arena for the litigants, and litigants have a significant WP:COI. The NLT restriction would apply to you, and you have agreed to stay away from BWS topics. Glrx (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not edit the page. The lawsuit information is still there. I was told the editors would not allow information about the lawsuit to stay. It is current litigation as it is in appeal. The Appeal's court already reversed the Judge's last ruling. If you will allow the info about the litigation to stay, please include both sides of the story. As it stands it is VERY one sided to the point that it is defamation against me. If you will quote an article about the litigation, quote the one from the biggest news service which includes both sides of the story and includes quotes by me such as "Cummins, who acted as her own attorney during much of the case, said the judgment is a "travesty of justice." Cummins said her "reports are 100 percent the truth. I believe [the suit] was malicious and frivolous." She said her complaints to authorities against Lollar were not all cleared. She said that Lollar "admitted she had no proof of financial damages" and that she did not know who posted the items on the Internet. "If there were any damages, they were all self-inflicted," she said." You should also include other media articles about the organization such as the Mineral Wells Index September 12, 1999 article, "Child found with rabid bat, undergoing round of rabies shots," [2] A child was bitten by a baby rabid bat directly next door to the sanctuary. You are only including the positive fluff articles which are misleading and inaccurate. Mary Cummins (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary, you have just come within an inch of another indefinite block. Your edit above not only adds more material to WP in a subject where you have a conflict of interest and are actively engaged in litigation, but you also accuse the article as it stood as 'defamation'. It is not the case that the litigation may not be mentioned. The litigation may not be mentioned BY YOU because you are a litigant. The same applies to the other party in the case. So, let me be clear:

• Do not accuse WP of defaming you
• Do not post detailed commentary such as you did above on the article and/or the case
• Understand that other people CAN make edits which you, as a litigant, may not
• Prepare to be blocked indefinitely if you make another post like the one above
• If you are in any doubt about material on the BWS page, place a note on this talk page asking another editor to review the article. That's all. Believe me, there are LOTS of eyes on your page and the BWS page right now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As instructed above I am requesting that another editor look at the BWS page to make sure it is an unbiased and fair representation of the organization. I don't believe it is. It only mentions positive articles and information which is not current. I am under the impression that only Amanda Lollar and I are not allowed to personally edit the page ourselves. I have a feeling that her friends are editing the page for her. I take it that is acceptable? Mary Cummins (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have already looked at the page and it is under constant review. You are not in a position to judge whether or not the article is fair and unbiased. Anyone apart from you and the other litigant may edit the article as long as they stay within the main principles of Wikipedia, which would preclude proxy editors if they stray from these principles. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked again

This, as you should have known, goes exactly against the very clear warning I gave you a few hours ago. You are using Wikipedia talk pages to continue your real-world legal battle with BWS. I've blocked you indefinitely, you must try and persuade an unblocking admin (not me) that you will not do this again if you want an unblock. I'll take this decision to WP:AN/I for a review so that other admins can take a view. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

I have started a new section at the incidents noticeboard to ask for a review of this block. You cannot post there but if you want to contribute, please post here and I or another editor will paste your comments across. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was told that if I have an issue with someone's edit that I should contact that editor. I contacted them on their talk page. I did not post on BWS page. I did not make any legal threats on wiki. If an editor is going to post about one side of a legal issue, they should post both sides of the legal issue. It is not balanced to only post one side. If they are posting a link to a biased article full of errors about a legal issue, they should at least post the link to the official appeal. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Neither party should be discussing nor continuing any legal action, statements, summary of their concerns, etc on Wikipedia - period. Continuing to do so after being advised to stop was more than unwise, it was fully blockable, and you had been made aware of that. You made a promise not to break Wikipedia's policies, and you broke it - flat out (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:37, 2 December 2012 (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.

You violated the terms of your previous unblock by discussing this matter on Wikipedia. Did you not understand the terms under which your block was removed?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a comment which disappeared. Anyway I went to the article where you are discussing my block. Snarky personal comments about me should not be allowed. If wiki is going to post about one side of a legal issue, they should include both sides or else not post about it at all. What was posted was defamatory against me. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Let me be blunt. While the legal proceedings are in place, you will be blocked if you make any posts remotely related to BWS. Unless you convince an admin that you will agree to not post about this subjet, you will remain blocked. If you continue to post on this page about this subject, your access will be removed. Now I'm not unsympathetic to your dilemma with this article. Should you have issues, please email them to me with the "email this user" link and I will try to assist you within Wikipedia policies.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the "email this user" link? What page? I was told I am supposed to talk about these issues on my talk page. How can I talk about the issue without mentioning B** W**** S******** or Law*** which are the issues? What is being posted about me is defamatory. It is not objective, unbiased or the truth. What would be the point of wikipedia if it only consists of highly biased unverified material? Are you saying that I just have to get someone else to post objective items on the BWS page then you'd be fine with that? Mary Cummins (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the link. Never mind. Mary Cummins (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem like you're getting the message; let me see if I can phrase it more clearly. You have agreed to post nowhere on Wikipedia, whether on an article, a talk page, a user page, anywhere, about this issue and these people. It doesn't matter if you think you've been defamed or people are saying things about you you don't like. It doesn't matter if you think someone else is violating policy. It doesn't matter if someone else does so first. It doesn't matter how much you think someone else's posting is inaccurate, biased, unverified or inflammatory. It doesn't matter if someone asks for your opinion. You can post nowhere on Wikipedia on these subjects, and a very quick way to earn a permanent block would be to get someone to be your stalking horse and do so for you.

  How do you talk about your grievances concerning the issue on Wikipedia? You don't. How do you change these articles? You don't, no matter how much they really need to be changed. Your only recourse is to e-mail LGR as was offered above, or to convince an admin that when you claim you'll abide by these restrictions, this time you're genuinely being sincere. If you don't think you can stay silent in these particular areas no matter how much you believe you've been provoked or how important you think it is, then the block should continue as long as legal action remains pending. Ravenswing 02:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment For the record, Mary has contacted me via email and I'm attempting to assit her as much as possible within policy and guideline. As many people who have been personally involved with a Wikipedia article she seems to be displeased about WP:NOTTRUTH. And who can blame her? Being close to a subject and not being able to comment on what you think to be true must be frustrating. Rest assured that I will not be editing for anyone on BWS as a proxy, and any edit I make will be backed up by a RS and/or discussed on the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I could understand frustration...WP:DOLT gives a great breakdown for her :-) ... it seems to match some of her issues right now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good essay, but unfortunate name. Not sure if it is intentional or not, but its use can have the effect of pouring gas on a fire.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is extremely frustrating to see things which are not the truth posted about me and BWS. The untruthful items about me are negative yet the ones about BWS are positive. I will not post about this any more. littlegreenrosetta has explained to me what wiki is and isn't. I now realize that wiki articles are not the truth. Wiki has nothing to do with the truth, just what the media reports. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A slight correction: Wikipedia is not your version of the truth. You have a bias and you are unable to overcome your bias. What you deem true is from your perspective. That's why we need third party (uninvolved) sources. If the battle is fought anywhere, it's in the courts and not here.--v/r - TP 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't know me. I write 100% honest reports about animal abusers and people who commit stock fraud. I've been sued for defamation before, represented myself pro se and won those previous cases. I always speak the absolute truth as these are reports I send to government agencies. All of my reports are 99.99% just government documents which I post online. I do freedom of information act requests and research. Here's an article about me Cummins wins Ashton Technology lawsuit and another Cummins wins Kathy Knight-McConnell lawsuit. My last case set case precedent on Internet and trademark law and has been cited in many other cases. Mary Cummins (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Mary, it's not about knowing you. It's about the fact that you see the world from your perspective, that's why it is your perspective. Wikipedia is not your perspective. That's why it's not your truth. That's why you should not edit here and that's why we do not allow folks to edit who are in a legal dispute. Deal with it in the courts.--20:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your name, whoever you are. I am dealing with it in the Second Court of Appeals in Texas. I am not posting about BWS on wiki. Enough said, buddy. Mary Cummins (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to wade into this discussion, but let me offer some advice. I have strong opinions on stuff in Wikipedia. Okay, they might not be as strong or as important as yours, but opinions they are nevertheless. I think quite some articles on a specific topic (that's not worth mentioning here), even those that have gone to WP:GA are as dull as dishwater and missing the point of the readership. Nobody else appears to agree with me, and on the few times I've brought it up, all hell's broken loose. Consequently, I edit about other stuff on Wikipedia instead. I haven't been blocked or topic banned, but I'm sure if I kept ramming my point home, I might have been. That's kinda why you were unblocked, because there's plenty of other stuff on here you can write about, and we gave you the chance to do that. I'm concerned if you keep on the way you have, you'll lose talk page access, which makes getting unblocked even harder. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to talk about BWS on wiki again. I understand what wiki is really about. I read the wiki page of the supposed founder ;-) I am making my own BWS wiki page in my website. This way I can link to official government documents which can't be done on wiki anyway. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what you said last time. What makes now any different? Livewireo (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Can we please stop this discussion? Mary doesn't want to edit here. She has her own opinion of Wikipedia, to which she's entitled. There's no point in continuing discussing a dead issue. Mary is doing something else on her own website. Everyone else can go do something more constructive on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

This block is no longer needed. I will not post about Bat World.

Accept reason:

I am accepting your unblock request on the basis of your undertaking not to edit on the subject which has in the past been so problematic. I note, however, that you made a similar undertaking the last time you were unblocked, and did not stick to it. Please be aware that if you do not stick to what you have said this time, not only it is virtually certain that you will be blocked again, but it is also highly likely that you will not be unblocked again, no matter what undertakings you offer. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mary Cummins, could you please expand on your very brief unblock request? Why is the block no longer needed? If you were unblocked, what types of topics or articles would you be interested in editing? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Admin note I've merged two unblock requests.--v/r - TP 23:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Where did my reply go? I said I would not post about bat world but about real estate, wildlife rehabilitation and the like only. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User page deletion

Hi, all pages on Wikipedia except those deleted are visible to all users. I can see yours just as you can see mine. There is no such thing as a private user page. Although a certain leeway is given for user pages, they must not be used for advertising. When I've finished this, I'll remove the spam links to your company and your charity. Please don't replace them, persistent spamming will lead to a block. If you want to publicise that information, do so on Facebook or Linked-In, not here.

You cannot delete my page, although you could blank it or add insults, actions that can easily be reversed. Looking at earlier postings, you seem to be a somewhat combative editor, but I suggest that you try to follow the guidelines and avoid abrasive edits, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted your sandbox. Don't recreate it with a self-promoting article about you, or you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are you stalking me here? Why are you following me? Who are you? I need a copy of the page you deleted. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 and I are both Wikipedia admins. It's not that we are stalking you, it's your actions that are attracting our attention. Your sandbox content is unlikely to be restored since it cannot stay there indefinitely, and the content is unsuitable either for a user page or an article. Please consider editing constructively instead of attempting to promote yourself or your company. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the history. Mary was indefinitely blocked in December 2012. She was unblocked on October 25, 2013, after making certain promises that don't directly relate to the current brouhaha. Today she made an edit to her user page. I've had her on my watchlist for a very long time, so I saw the change. When I looked at the self-promoting article, I almost deleted it myself, but I decided to tag it. After evaluating the tag, Jim deleted it (I'm assuming Jim was not aware of Mary before this).

I deleleted the sandbox on my own because it was effectly the same as her deleted user page. As for your needing a copy of the page, why would you need that? You recreated it in your sandbox without any assistance from us.

Now let's get to the core of the problem. Since you've been unblocked, you have made no edits that evince any interest in improving Wikipedia. Your sandbox is a place to test things, but not, as you call it on my talk page, a "private" area. Just like everything on Wikipedia, user space pages exist for the benefit of the project. Any user space that is being used inappropriately can be deleted and the user can be blocked if they persist. Frankly, I don't find even the current pared-down version on your user page to be acceptable if all you're going to do here is using Wikipedia for your own benefit.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How is my user page benefiting me? It mentions a non-profit where I volunteer, i.e volunteer = work for no money. My sister is Juliette Cummins. Her boyfriend made her page and it's a copy of her resume. All she did was (Redacted) some crappy horror movies. That is data which helps the world? She's still working even though her page says she isn't.

I haven't edited any articles recently because I was blocked. I was getting ready to start editing again when my page was deleted. I am sorry that I confused Jim with Bbb23. I couldn't see who edited my page because it was deleted. Mary Cummins (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Benefit doesn't have to be financial. Your sister's page is in article space and is subject to different rules, so comparing it to your user page is mostly apples and oranges (I have made some changes to the article, though).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, let me point out a few things about how Wikipedia functions. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. A user page is in principle for information about the user in connection with their work on the encyclopaedia. and not for posting a personal web page unrelated to such work. Use of any Wikipedia page for any kind of promotion is contrary to policy. For some reason a good many editors think, as you evidently do, that the word "promotion" can only mean promotion for monetary gain, but that is not so. Contrary to what you appear to think, there are various ways that editing of your user page may come to the attention of other editors who are not "stalking" you. For example, anyone who regularly takes part in new page patrol is likely to see it, and anyone who has ever posted to your talk page and watchlisted it in case you reply to them may see it. I saw it because I watchlisted this page when I unblocked you, as I always do with editors I have unblocked, to keep an eye on things in case of further problems. If, as you suggest, you mistakenly thought that your user page would not be seen by any other editors, and feel that anyone taking notice of it is intruding, then you were attempting to use Wikipedia as a free web host to hold a personal page for your own use, not for use of the project. That is itself contrary to Wikipedia policy. You have a history of taking a battleground approach towards other editors with whom you disagree, which is closely related to the reason why you have been repeatedly blocked from editing. You have recently continued in the same vein, posting angry diatribes against people who have taken actions you don't like. Any editor who continues in that way is likely to be blocked indefinitely, especially if, as in your case, there is a lack of constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia. As far as your editing history goes, your only purposes in being here appear to be to tell the world about your work, and to tell the world about how bad you think someone else is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• One more point. I have just done a Google search for "She is President of non-profit Animal Advocates which rescues ill, injured and orphaned native". Your Wikipedia user page was the first page listed, contrary to your apparent belief that user pages don't show up in searches. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Gary K. Michelson

The entries that I restored at Gary K. Michelson were sourced, you just deleted the sources when you deleted my edits, and wrote on my talk page that they were un-sourced. I'm going to revert you, please don't revert me again without providing a reason, or providing sources that state contrary information to what I found. MisterUnit (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are not sufficient. You can't source Gary's own website. He wrote his website. It must be an independent media article. For this reason I will revert them. Do not replace unless you can link to an independent accredited media article such as the LA Times. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not reference "Gary's own website," I referenced the Found Animals Foundation website, which contains a biography on Dr. Michelson. That is a perfectly good source, and even if this entire webpage was written by Dr. Michelson it would still be an acceptable WP:SELFSOURCE. MisterUnit (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a response to this? If not, I'm going to go ahead and change this material back. MisterUnit (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)