User talk:Thechadl: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:39, 7 March 2012

Welcome!

Hello, Cjjusa1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Carlos "Caique" Elias, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Carlos "Caique" Elias

A tag has been placed on Carlos "Caique" Elias, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion I did not mark it, User:Suriel1981 did above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z17 Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

No clear reason was provided for my block, only a generic assumption that I am violating Wikipedia rules by promoting a subject. I have written one NPOV, factual article (with verifiable external references) about a subject who clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Every other person of similar or higher rank in Brazilian jiu-jitsu has a wikipedia page. To disclose any potential conflict of interest: I do not work, and have never worked, for this subject or any of his organizations. I am not paid by them in any way. I have attended the school as a student (as I have attended many different schools over the years). I would ask that you please stop making assumptions about my motivations and instead judge the page and the subject on its merits, compared to pages regarding other notable martial artists. I have read the rules regarding promotions, NPOV, and conflict of interest and it does not state that anything about certain usernames being banned unless they are offensive. Please either unblock me, or point SPECIFICALLY to the exact section of the rules which you feel I have violated (rather than to a document containing dozens of rules).

Decline reason:

A clear reason was provided for your block; you may disagree with the principal involved, but this is not the venue for that discussion. The unblock template is not to employed for discussions on the validity or viability of project policies and guidelines. Tiderolls 01:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am not disagreeing with the project policies. I have read the policies carefully, and I don't believe that I am in violation. Therefore, I feel that the block is unwarranted and I request that I be unblocked. Please, whoever is reviewing this unblock request, can you point out exactly which policy I am supposed to have violated? The original reason for the block states only the following:

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes

The article in question is Carlos "Caique" Elias. Allow me to make my case by going section-by-section through the relevant policies. I apologize in advance for the length of the text here, but since I have not been provided with a reference to a specific section of policy I'm supposed to have violated, I will take the trouble of answering ALL possibly relevant policy sections proactively.

Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox states "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.". If you review the article for Carlos "Caique" Elias, you will see that the page is written in an NPOV manner, it does not read as any kind of promotion, there are no claims or puffery regarding the quality of his instruction, and the facts are backed up by external references. Please compare with articles about similar figures of lesser rank including Fábio Santos, Wellington "Megaton" Dias, and Leonardo Xavier. None of these articles is marked for deletion, none is marked as having issues, and I presume none of their authors were summarily banned. I have not violated this guideline, as best as I can tell.

Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox states "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable." - I do not have a strong affiliation with the individual in question although I have met him and I did train at his school (as well as many other schools). I created the username in order to add missing information about a notable figure, because Wikipedia has disabled anonymous page creation. Had I created the username like "jsmith", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, I have voluntarily disclosed the affiliation to flag any possible COI. And now it seems I am being penalized for this. See the next section.

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states (emphasis added) "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing". I have made a voluntary disclosure of affiliation on my user page and through my choice of username. I would ask that the admins follow the related guideline from the COI policy, which states "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. 'Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor'".

COI also states "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously". It does NOT say that COI editing is prohibited (it is not), nor does it state that editing when there is a COI, especially when the article is NPOV and the potential COI has been disclosed, is automatic grounds for a ban.

COI states "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias". NOBODY has been able to point out any bias, promotional slant, or POV in the Carlos "Caique" Elias article in question. Therefore I believe it is unfair for me to be summarily banned without there being a dialog about any specific issues regarding the article in question and without being given a chance to improve the article in response to specific feedback.

I will leave you with another guideline from COI, namely Primacy of basic content policies which states "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies. 'Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles'". However, the admin User:Suriel1981 who tagged the page for speedy deletion CLEARLY did not follow this important guideline when he wrote "'I nominated the article for CSD as the now-blocked creator had the same username as Carlos "Caique" Elias' commercial website and I had the concern that the article was mainly to promote Elias' school and training programs"'. This is obviously in DIRECT contravention to the "Primacy of basic content" policies!

I am not trying to be disruptive with my unblock request, but seeing as I have not introduced any bias into the article (nor has anyone even accused me of doing so). I feel like I'm being railroaded here unfairly and without really adequate explanation of which specific policies I have violated. Simply pasting a template text into your unblock review and reaffirming that the original block was unjustified is extremely frustrating and I feel like the admins are simply backing each other up out of reflex, without really spending 5 minutes looking at whether the alleged violations actually took place. This is a great way to discourage valid, relevant, and well-documented content from being contributed to this project.

TL;DR: Wikipedia COI policies state "Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor" and "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles."

Thank you for reviewing and sorry for the length

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am not disagreeing with the project policies. I have read the policies carefully, and I don't believe that I am in violation. Therefore, I feel that the block is unwarranted and I request that I be unblocked. Please, whoever is reviewing this unblock request, can you point out exactly which policy I am supposed to have violated? The original reason for the block states only the following:

''Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes''

The article in question is [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]]. Allow me to make my case by going section-by-section through the relevant policies. I apologize in advance for the length of the text here, but since I have not been provided with a reference to a specific section of policy I'm supposed to have violated, I will take the trouble of answering ALL possibly relevant policy sections proactively.

* [[Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]] states "'''Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.'''". If you review the article for [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]], you will see that the page is written in an NPOV manner, it does not read as any kind of promotion, there are no claims or [[puffery]] regarding the quality of his instruction, and the facts are backed up by external references. Please compare with articles about similar figures of lesser rank including [[Fábio Santos]], [[Wellington "Megaton" Dias]], and [[Leonardo Xavier]]. None of these articles is marked for deletion, none is marked as having issues, and I presume none of their authors were summarily banned. I have not violated this guideline, as best as I can tell.

* [[Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]] states "'''It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable.'''" - I do not have a strong affiliation with the individual in question although I have met him and I did train at his school (as well as many other schools). I created the username in order to add missing information about a notable figure, because Wikipedia has disabled anonymous page creation. Had I created the username like "jsmith", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, I have voluntarily disclosed the affiliation to flag any possible COI. And now it seems I am being penalized for this. See the next section. 

* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] states (emphasis added) "'''Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—''but not actually required''—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing'''". I have made a voluntary disclosure of affiliation on my user page and through my choice of username. I would ask that the admins follow the related guideline from the COI policy, which states "'''When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. ''''Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor''''".

* COI also states "'''COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously'''". It does NOT say that COI editing is prohibited (it is not), nor does it state that editing when there is a COI, especially when the article is NPOV and the potential COI has been disclosed, is automatic grounds for a ban.

* COI states "'''When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias'''". NOBODY has been able to point out any bias, promotional slant, or POV in the [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]] article in question. Therefore I believe it is unfair for me to be summarily banned without there being a dialog about any specific issues regarding the article in question and without being given a chance to improve the article in response to specific feedback.

* I will leave you with another guideline from COI, namely '''Primacy of basic content policies''' which states "'''All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies. ''''Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles''''". However, the admin [[User:Suriel1981]] who tagged the page for speedy deletion CLEARLY did not follow this important guideline when [[Talk:Carlos "Caique" Elias|he wrote]] "'I nominated the article for CSD as the now-blocked creator had the same username as Carlos "Caique" Elias' commercial website and I had the concern that the article was mainly to promote Elias' school and training programs"'. This is obviously in DIRECT contravention to the "Primacy of basic content" policies!

I am not trying to be disruptive with my unblock request, but seeing as I have not introduced any bias into the article (nor has anyone even accused me of doing so). I feel like I'm being railroaded here unfairly and without really adequate explanation of which specific policies I have violated. Simply pasting a template text into your unblock review and reaffirming that the original block was unjustified is extremely frustrating and I feel like the admins are simply backing each other up out of reflex, without really spending 5 minutes looking at whether the alleged violations actually took place. This is a great way to discourage valid, relevant, and well-documented content from being contributed to this project.

''TL;DR'': Wikipedia COI policies state "'''Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor'''" and "'''Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.'''"

Thank you for reviewing and sorry for the length |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am not disagreeing with the project policies. I have read the policies carefully, and I don't believe that I am in violation. Therefore, I feel that the block is unwarranted and I request that I be unblocked. Please, whoever is reviewing this unblock request, can you point out exactly which policy I am supposed to have violated? The original reason for the block states only the following:

''Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes''

The article in question is [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]]. Allow me to make my case by going section-by-section through the relevant policies. I apologize in advance for the length of the text here, but since I have not been provided with a reference to a specific section of policy I'm supposed to have violated, I will take the trouble of answering ALL possibly relevant policy sections proactively.

* [[Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]] states "'''Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.'''". If you review the article for [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]], you will see that the page is written in an NPOV manner, it does not read as any kind of promotion, there are no claims or [[puffery]] regarding the quality of his instruction, and the facts are backed up by external references. Please compare with articles about similar figures of lesser rank including [[Fábio Santos]], [[Wellington "Megaton" Dias]], and [[Leonardo Xavier]]. None of these articles is marked for deletion, none is marked as having issues, and I presume none of their authors were summarily banned. I have not violated this guideline, as best as I can tell.

* [[Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]] states "'''It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable.'''" - I do not have a strong affiliation with the individual in question although I have met him and I did train at his school (as well as many other schools). I created the username in order to add missing information about a notable figure, because Wikipedia has disabled anonymous page creation. Had I created the username like "jsmith", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, I have voluntarily disclosed the affiliation to flag any possible COI. And now it seems I am being penalized for this. See the next section. 

* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] states (emphasis added) "'''Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—''but not actually required''—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing'''". I have made a voluntary disclosure of affiliation on my user page and through my choice of username. I would ask that the admins follow the related guideline from the COI policy, which states "'''When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. ''''Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor''''".

* COI also states "'''COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously'''". It does NOT say that COI editing is prohibited (it is not), nor does it state that editing when there is a COI, especially when the article is NPOV and the potential COI has been disclosed, is automatic grounds for a ban.

* COI states "'''When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias'''". NOBODY has been able to point out any bias, promotional slant, or POV in the [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]] article in question. Therefore I believe it is unfair for me to be summarily banned without there being a dialog about any specific issues regarding the article in question and without being given a chance to improve the article in response to specific feedback.

* I will leave you with another guideline from COI, namely '''Primacy of basic content policies''' which states "'''All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies. ''''Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles''''". However, the admin [[User:Suriel1981]] who tagged the page for speedy deletion CLEARLY did not follow this important guideline when [[Talk:Carlos "Caique" Elias|he wrote]] "'I nominated the article for CSD as the now-blocked creator had the same username as Carlos "Caique" Elias' commercial website and I had the concern that the article was mainly to promote Elias' school and training programs"'. This is obviously in DIRECT contravention to the "Primacy of basic content" policies!

I am not trying to be disruptive with my unblock request, but seeing as I have not introduced any bias into the article (nor has anyone even accused me of doing so). I feel like I'm being railroaded here unfairly and without really adequate explanation of which specific policies I have violated. Simply pasting a template text into your unblock review and reaffirming that the original block was unjustified is extremely frustrating and I feel like the admins are simply backing each other up out of reflex, without really spending 5 minutes looking at whether the alleged violations actually took place. This is a great way to discourage valid, relevant, and well-documented content from being contributed to this project.

''TL;DR'': Wikipedia COI policies state "'''Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor'''" and "'''Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.'''"

Thank you for reviewing and sorry for the length |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am not disagreeing with the project policies. I have read the policies carefully, and I don't believe that I am in violation. Therefore, I feel that the block is unwarranted and I request that I be unblocked. Please, whoever is reviewing this unblock request, can you point out exactly which policy I am supposed to have violated? The original reason for the block states only the following:

''Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes''

The article in question is [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]]. Allow me to make my case by going section-by-section through the relevant policies. I apologize in advance for the length of the text here, but since I have not been provided with a reference to a specific section of policy I'm supposed to have violated, I will take the trouble of answering ALL possibly relevant policy sections proactively.

* [[Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]] states "'''Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.'''". If you review the article for [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]], you will see that the page is written in an NPOV manner, it does not read as any kind of promotion, there are no claims or [[puffery]] regarding the quality of his instruction, and the facts are backed up by external references. Please compare with articles about similar figures of lesser rank including [[Fábio Santos]], [[Wellington "Megaton" Dias]], and [[Leonardo Xavier]]. None of these articles is marked for deletion, none is marked as having issues, and I presume none of their authors were summarily banned. I have not violated this guideline, as best as I can tell.

* [[Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox]] states "'''It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable.'''" - I do not have a strong affiliation with the individual in question although I have met him and I did train at his school (as well as many other schools). I created the username in order to add missing information about a notable figure, because Wikipedia has disabled anonymous page creation. Had I created the username like "jsmith", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, I have voluntarily disclosed the affiliation to flag any possible COI. And now it seems I am being penalized for this. See the next section. 

* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] states (emphasis added) "'''Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—''but not actually required''—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing'''". I have made a voluntary disclosure of affiliation on my user page and through my choice of username. I would ask that the admins follow the related guideline from the COI policy, which states "'''When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. ''''Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor''''".

* COI also states "'''COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously'''". It does NOT say that COI editing is prohibited (it is not), nor does it state that editing when there is a COI, especially when the article is NPOV and the potential COI has been disclosed, is automatic grounds for a ban.

* COI states "'''When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias'''". NOBODY has been able to point out any bias, promotional slant, or POV in the [[Carlos "Caique" Elias]] article in question. Therefore I believe it is unfair for me to be summarily banned without there being a dialog about any specific issues regarding the article in question and without being given a chance to improve the article in response to specific feedback.

* I will leave you with another guideline from COI, namely '''Primacy of basic content policies''' which states "'''All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies. ''''Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles''''". However, the admin [[User:Suriel1981]] who tagged the page for speedy deletion CLEARLY did not follow this important guideline when [[Talk:Carlos "Caique" Elias|he wrote]] "'I nominated the article for CSD as the now-blocked creator had the same username as Carlos "Caique" Elias' commercial website and I had the concern that the article was mainly to promote Elias' school and training programs"'. This is obviously in DIRECT contravention to the "Primacy of basic content" policies!

I am not trying to be disruptive with my unblock request, but seeing as I have not introduced any bias into the article (nor has anyone even accused me of doing so). I feel like I'm being railroaded here unfairly and without really adequate explanation of which specific policies I have violated. Simply pasting a template text into your unblock review and reaffirming that the original block was unjustified is extremely frustrating and I feel like the admins are simply backing each other up out of reflex, without really spending 5 minutes looking at whether the alleged violations actually took place. This is a great way to discourage valid, relevant, and well-documented content from being contributed to this project.

''TL;DR'': Wikipedia COI policies state "'''Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor'''" and "'''Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.'''"

Thank you for reviewing and sorry for the length |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}