User talk:Metaxal

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. 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, website 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, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for 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.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about 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. Alexf^(talk) 16:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I believe I have been blocked because the link I have edited contains my username. This is no mistake though: The link was already there, and it was not placed on Wikipedia by me (I don't even know who put it there); This link happens to be a link to one of my own projects (I was even surprised to see it there), but this link is dead now, as the project has moved to github, so I just updated it to point to the new location of the same project. Also the block says that my username violates Wikipedia's username policy; I guess the reason is because it "unambiguously consist[s] of a name of a company, group, institution or product"? However, this username is not such a thing: It has been my username on the Internet since 1998, and does not describe anyone or any group except me (as far as I can tell), so it is not promotional, it is only a pseudo that reflects my identity. I only intend to make Wikipedia a better source of information (also see my previous edits on other pages, albeit limited in number) and I believe that's indeed what my edit was about, and I think it was not self-promotion (am I wrong?).

Also, btw, the second link that you deleted does not point toward a project of mine, but is actually the standard package system of the programming language that is discussed on that page. So that would be strange to consider it spam, no? I think it should at least appear at the bottom of the page (but then why not just put an in-place link that is easier to find?).

Accept reason:

I apologize about the block - we have various automated countermeasures in place that notify volunteers when an edit is suspicious. If you include a link on a page and the link contains your username it will be flagged as self-promotion (per our spam policy). I assume someone saw that and didn't notice your other edits. In any case, it's clear that you're not interested in promoting yourself; just be careful about that in the future.
I'm lifting your block. Thank you for being reasonable and rational about everything! Feel free to resume regular editing - just keep what I said in mind. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best, m.o.p 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To Alexf: Revert your changes?

Hi, you recently blocked me (I edited a link that appeared to contain my username), and after discussion Master Of Puppets unblocked me (see above). However, I think the changes I had made, that cost me to be blocked, are still legit, or at least the link(s) should appear in some form. M.o.p. told me to check with you. Your edit on page Racket features (history) is about 2 changes: a link toward one of my projects (the link I wanted to update), and a link toward PLaneT, which has nothing to do with me, and is a dependency of the programming language that is discussed on that page. I think at least the PLaneT link really belongs there. Regarding the link to my project, since I did not myself put it there in the first place, I believe it could still belong there. One or both links could be added as in-place links (that's the edit I had done), or they could be added to the External Links section (but they would be harder to find and a bit too far away from their context from the section "Gui programming"). Another option would be to leave the page as is and not revert your changes, of course.

What do you think? Thanks, Metaxal (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Back from vacation. I read the decision above and agree with it. As per your question, I have added back the company's website to the article,but as external links. I stand by the decision to remove it from the article itself as it was put in a way to mean "this is were you get the code". This, although true, reeks of instructions and Wikipedia is not a manual, but a link as an external reference is ok. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But wouldn't a footnote make more sense than just an external link, as is done on the main page of the language? It seems strange to make the reader himself scroll down to the external links section to find the relevant information; or should this be considered bad style? Metaxal (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)