User talk:204.239.11.6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Baptism in Jesus' Name[edit]

I reversed your edit to the article Oneness Pentecostalism. While I fully agree with your edit (I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal), such a statement needs a source. If you can find a reliable online source to back up the statement, please feel free to post it again. BroWCarey (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Excirial. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Robert E. Gerstung, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Acabashi. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Philadelphia Eagles because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Acabashi (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2014[edit]

Please note that in the article "Neo-Catholicism" I undid your reference to the "Storcke" (sic) article "fairly presenting the opposing view," because Thomas Storck opposes the view that NFP is wrong, but that is not the view the article you edited discusses, which is that NFP should be a "lifestyle" as opposed to a method used for grave or serious reasons. The Church has never taught that NPF is a "lifestyle," which is only the opinion of lay promoters of NFP. Also, this is not a debate over NFP in which "opposing views" would be presented. There is no debate: NFP is morally permissible. The issue, rather, is the progressive view which advocates its routine use as part of one's lifestyle, something the Church has never taught. Also, your edit lacked the proper tags and was inserted in the middle of a footnote, disrupting its structure and generating red flags in the article text. Circa Corleone (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Neo-Catholicism. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CaptRik (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
  • You have a clear COI, as your whois reveals at first glance, and you may not turn that article into a company directory or, worse, a brochure. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

204.239.11.6 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Conflict of interest is relevant in this context to the point of marketing puffery. A factual listing of locations in which the company has a physical presence is a common feature of many articles (Examples include 1. Other FBO chains including Landmark Aviation and Atlantic Aviation 2. American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines listing the locations they serve 3. Chain restaurants listing the markets in which they have a presence 4. ENAIRE, British Airports Authority, or Aeroports de Paris listing the airports which they manage 5. Listings of which markets NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox operate on their respective corporate pages). Such edits made by this IP address are clearly to maintain the factual accuracy of the article and efforts for housekeeping by ensuring new locations are added and old locations removed, and in no way have made forthcoming statements of endorsement for the company and the Wikipedia moderator has no evidence of any offense otherwise than personal conjecture and opinion. Futhermore, the insistence to single out one company whilst allowing other companies within the field to retain a full listing of locations (Atlantic Aviation and Landmark Aviation) is hypocritical and indicates a personal conflict of interest from the stated user, who has sought to make campaign of enforcement of double standards. A listing of locations in which our terminals are operated is comparable to that of an airline listing the locations its serves, and to those ends serves Wikipedia users current information. Listing locations information does not constitute an advertisement or brochure as the said listing contained no language featuring approval, endorsement, or misleading text but simply contained a city and airport line item, and if a listing of airports is to be considered commercialization, then such ruling needs to be adjudicated fairly to other articles for competitive businesses. An arbitrary block created by the user is merely a distraction upon their own conflict of interest, with consideration as to why they would elect to inconsistently and subjectively administer their interpretation of the Wikipedia rules. Simply because a Wikipedia user has a corporate affiliation does not automatically imply they are dishonestly manipulating articles, and while such instances of edits made by a corporation should be moderated closely, it is immensely conceited to blindly assume that only independent Wikipedia users can provide responsible moderation of a Wikipedia page.

Decline reason:

Checking your past contributions, I have to agree with Drmies that you're clearly here to promote your company, likely in violation of the Terms of Use. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and this edit, though old, is telling. I'd consider that one "dishonestly manipulating articles". Huon (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2015 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

204.239.11.6 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

As mentioned in the response, the 2014 modification (which was not completed by this individual) is dated. A singular instance of name switching, whilst irregular and incorrect, does not demonstrate a concentrated effort to rewrite pages. The above response does not cite instances (as suggested by "checking your past contributions"), other than the Santa Barbara article in which promotional language is used. In fact, based on a review of every page that cites an instance of this IP address being used to modify an article, the vast majority are for baseball related articles. April 23, 2013 revisions by myself edited a list of locations that was inappropriately attributed to the company, and June 25, 2014 revisions to a White Plains airport article adjusted a link and explicitly left in references to competitors. The remainder of edits relate to the list on the BBA Aviation page in question. It should also be noted that the organization has made no attempt to whitewash, modify, or promote the company in any previous edit, but simply updated a factual list. If the argument using other Wikipedia pages is notwithstanding in reference to unrelated fields, surely it is related to organizations that perform identical functions. In order to maintain consistency, the Landmark and Atlantic pages would, by both users responses, need the locations listed to be removed. If maintaining a list of terminal locations is conduct worthy of a 3 month block, then an edit on the Atlantic page by user Zyxw on July 29, 2012 that completed a list of FBO locations and an edit by the same user to the Landmark page on July 11, 2012 would constitute blockable offenses. Wikipedia aims to have consistent article formatting across its database, and the edits which I have committed to the website are entirely consistent with other FBO chains. If past transgressions (the plurality of which suggests that multiple infringements occured, which they have not) have infringed on the neutrality of the article, please inform which edits have generated promotional content for the business, or alternatively rescind the special protectionist privileges of the other similar companies in the name of fairness. If the interpreted definitions of the two users on this page are held to be true, the other organizations would (by those definitions) be advertising their businesses in a manner that violates the terms of service. Whilst there is an incredulity of Wikipedia users that corporate edits are singularly hurtful to the website, the innocuous, factual, documented edits here within serve very little demonstration of puffery or achievement or promotion or advertisement, as demonstrated by logical and fair comparisons. Please specify which edits and how the edits to the BBA Aviation page constitute advertising and a violation of the terms of service, whilst the entries on the Atlantic and Landmark pages do not.204.239.11.6 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No compelling reason to unblock provided. PhilKnight (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2015 (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.

May 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Mikemoral. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Battle of Upperville— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —mikemoral (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)