User talk:Kristuq

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).

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

Request reason:

In wikipedia terms I am just one day old. So I was pretty much learning as I would find out new features. It is not easy for a newcomer to get used to this complex behind the scenes part. Therefore I asked to be unblocked because I was aware of the conditions and the guidelines. I thought it was ok to simply post text as long as I referenced it. Now I know that I will have to write everything myself in order for it to be published here. My main concern was that some of the text was written by me even if it was minatory, so why does the whole page have to be deleted However I do understand the rules and regulations and I will not break them. From now on I will probably ask of anything I don't know so that I don't get blocked, because like most people I do want to help, and I am sorry for the mess that I caused. I simply know of companies and I think they should be up on this page so that people have an easier time when reading about them. This I know because I had to write a paper on them and it was quite difficult to find information. Thank you! Kristuq (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Kristuq (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) You're not going to be unblocked if you intend to try to recreate an advertisement about a non-notable company and (2) regarding your comment below, see WP:BROTHER

. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 23 April 2015 (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.

I have a question. After being blocked, did you create the account User:Wikifakes1996? This user was making very similar edits of you, and using multiple accounts is forbidden, see WP:SOCKPUPPET. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I understood the problem with copyrighted, I will not do that again. When I create it again I will make sure not to do the same mistakes. Now regarding that other guy Wikifakes1996, that is my brother. And there is no surprise that he would back me up or recreate what I wanted to create at first, additionally I don't see how he broke the rules. Kristuq (talk) 14

I have a concern with what you just wrote: "... that other guy Wikifakes1996, that is my brother." On User talk:Callanecc, your "brother" wrote "Please stop deleting my infomation pages for nothing because if I wanted to make a ad it would be talking about the services which this comapny offers. Something which I am not doing. Please return the page because I spent a lot of time building!!" [emphasis added]. Is your brother in the habit of referring to you as "I"? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't do it, my brother/sister/friend did it" is a standard argument that fails here. I guess we'll find out when Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kristuq is involved- I would strongly recommend that no admin unblocks this user until that SPI is resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all my brother did contribute as he did add the references to the information page as well as aided me with information about the company and its owners. Secondly, as I was blocked, I was not able to edit the page, so I had emailed him what to write so that someone could read it and understand that they should not delete the enter page just the 80% which was copyrighted. So it was in my words not his but he was the one able to write it as he was not blocked......!!!! Kristuq (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I have written? I said I will do it correctly this time, that means I am not going to place copyrighted information!!!!! That means that I will also not advertise something!!!!! I am simply going to write about the company, and of course it is notable company if it has a revenue over 1 billion dollars -.-. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's non-notable. Even Financial Time has written about the owner and its history!!!! Kristuq (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you intend to recreate this article, you're not going to be unblocked, period. Also, do not modify unblock requests that have already been declined. Create a new unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why this article is not allowed? Kristuq (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, admins have protected those article names so new users/IP addresses cannot create those pages again. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? All the other companies have a info page on wikipedia, why shouldn't this one? Kristuq (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The names got protected because you were repeatedly making awful articles at those pages. They maybe should have a page, I don't know enough to say, but the pages that you were creating were not okay. Also, the last time you created an article, you said that it definitely didn't have any copyright infringements, when it did, so why would this be any different if you created it again? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're not allowed to remove failed unblock requests. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is honestly getting pathetic, I said I didn't know the rules. I thought as long as you cited it it would be ok to place the text. Now I know better. That should not limit a company from having a page. But what is annoying me most is the fact that the whole page had to be removed together with the legitamate text. This is supposed to be a free contribution, why would you not allow the useful part. I know I would not do it again because I know it will get deleted and thats not the point. How I would do it next time would be properly nothing copyrighted on it. I didn't know the rules to the citing thats why I said nothing copyrighted, because I didn't know that you have to re-write everything. I am 18 and as I said it is my first day how am I supposed to know it.