User talk:Gandon64

Welcome[edit]

Pol098's issue with Gandon64[edit]

Pol098 sometimes edits pages unnecessarily. One of these pages is FRG. I have only made a few additions to Wikipedia in the last 5 years and not once have I removed someone else's work.

I (Pol098) have repeatedly removed the following line, repeatedly inserted by Gandon64, from the FRG article. According to guideline WP:DABABBREV a disambiguation page should only include initialisms if they are used in an article. Others have in the past also deleted this line, some describing it as spam (electronic). See the archived version of this talk page for a 2012 comment by someone else (the content of this page was removed today by its creator).

FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented waste to syngas conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc.

Pol098 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ill will towards you Pol098 but please stop being a WP:BULLY. The issue that you currently have with the FRG reference was long ago resolved. The repeated insertion of "FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented waste to syngas conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc." is due to it being an initialism. If you would like to work together then please edit the FRG™ reference to your satisfaction other than removing it and we can build from there. Short of Wikipedia permanently blocking my account, I will not let it be removed.(Gandon64 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

February 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring at FRG, making improper edits to a disambig page, WP:SPAMLINK, and threats of future disruption. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2014 (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).

Gandon64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I fail to see why I am the only one here at fault especially when Pol098 mass deletes content on pages time and time again. Pol098's knowledge and experience with edit warring due to continuous conflicts with other editors (see talk) unfortunately easily suckered me in and I whole heartily apologize to you and Wikipedia for that and accept the block. Some form of help/effort from him/her would have be more productive vs the I'm better than you stance Pol098 repeatedly takes. Bbb23 is there a way to rewrite this sentence so that it can remain on the FRG page? :FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented waste to syngas conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc. Would this be more appropriate? :FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a waste to syngas energy conversion process or :FRG - Free Radical Gasification, a waste to syngas energy conversion process Your help would be very much appreciated. Gandon64 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If the only reason for the block were edit warring, then I would agree that you and Pol098 should have been treated the same, but it isn't the only reason. It was explained to you why your edit was mistaken, but you chose to ignore that, and keep on making the same inappropriate edit over and over again. Also, you concern to find ways to include the content in a disambiguation page gives all the appearance of confirming that your purpose is promotion. An entry on a disambiguation page should exist because there is a need for it to distinguish among articles which might all be searched for under the same title, not because someone wants it to be visible there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2014 (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.

The second choice looks better to me (without having gone into it deeply) - we don't use ™ or similar things on Wikipedia. (It's usually taken to mean that the edit comes from the holder of the mark, and that as a result of that it is there to promote. Usually, that is correct, I'm afraid...) Peridon (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, neither is acceptable. Peridon is right about the ™, but the core of the problem can be found at WP:DABSTYLE and more simply at WP:DDD. The entry doesn't belong on a dismabig page as there are no blue links to any article. Linking to the words waste and syngas don't count as neither mentions the acronym.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Would it be better if I attempt to create the Free Radical Gasification wiki page (never done one before) or could I simply reference Radical (chemistry)? (Gandon64 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Radical (chemistry) doesn't reference FRG, either. Whether you could appropriately add the acronym to the article or whether a new article would meet Wikipedia guidelines I can't answer as I know nothing about the subject. I know a little about political radicals if that helps. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it absolutely would not be better to do any of the things you suggest. An entry on a disambiguation page should exist because there is an article that needs disambiguation, and to think that an article should exist in order to keep an entry in a disambiguation page is to put the cart before the horse. Likewise, linking to an article that doesn't mention the acronym in order to justify the disambiguation page entry does not justify it. And, in case you think of it, putting content mentioning "FRG" into an article so that you can link to the article from the disambiguation page is no better. You have made it abundantly clear that your aim is to get a mention of Responsible Energy Inc's proprietary term displayed by Wikipedia. That is to say, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Complying with Wikipedia policies is not optional, and editors who try to use Wikipedia for promotion are blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It must be painfully obvious to you all by now that I am very new to editing Wikipedia. There was no intension top put the horse before the cart other than writing a page on Free Radical Gasification will take a long time and I have not had the chance to do so. I am a specialist on the subject matter and would include many top scientist as references. I have no problem accepting your policy that the page cannot include any references to responsible energy or the ™. With that being said why are there are 1,000's of pages dedicated to companies and to trademarks. Should they not all be removed? I am still very confused about the rule of what constitutes a proper reference? If I were really trying to promote the company would I have not tried to put significantly more details plus a link to their website?Gandon64 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]