User talk:George Mucus

Your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "MucusArt", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. Alternatively, you can just create a new account and use that for editing. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a company name or the name of a website. It's a pen name (or, more accurately, style name) that I use in virtually all of my social media art presence. I can't begin to think of another name that I would use for this, as it would break continuity with my other online creative projects. My username must remain MucusArt. If having my style name as my portfolio's URL is a problem then that seems somewhat unreasonable to me. MucusArt (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit puzzled that you say the name is not a website when your user page states "find me on the web at mucusarts.com". 331dot (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's my URL but it's not the name of the page. Like, if you type Skrillex.com or something, you'll get Skrillex's page but that doesn't mean his portfolio is called Skrillex, does it? And him using the name "Skrillex" to edit wikipedia wouldn't be unreasonable, would it? Do you see what I'm talking about now? MucusArt (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Username policy clearly states that domain names, and not just website names, violate policy; usernames are "inappropriate if their primary purpose is to advertise, promote, sell, gain support, or increase the attention or user-base audience of any person, company, market, product, channel, website, or other good or service" which clearly would include your portfolio. I still believe you should change your username. I apologize for being frank but we are not concerned with anyone's general internet presence and what someone calls it. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a senseless and arbitrary policy. Why do you even make my username your business, anyway? Why does this matter to you? It literally isn't harming a damned thing. I use this name literally everywhere else. It's a pseudonym. You might *believe* that I should change it, but I see absolutely no reason to and I disagree entirely with your interpretation of the rules. Leave me alone. MucusArt (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would rather have another mod look at this. This random guy suddenly decided that my username was somehow a website name and singlehandedly locked down my account. This is not only senseless to me but also seems to be more administrative power than this guy should have. My username doesn't seem to break any rules and it should be unblocked. I don't know what 331dot' s problem with me is, but he clearly has one. God dammit, I just wanted to update my great aunt's page. This is egregious.

Decline reason:

OK. I'm another "mod". Your username indeed breaks a policy, as the notice above indicates: Your username indicates that the account represents a business, organization, group, or web site, which is against the username policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:23, 26 February 2023 (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.

Just follow the instructions in the block notice, where it says "You may request a change of username". We didn't decide your pen name is somehow a website -- you announced it to us, on your userpage. Here's the deal -- we don't allow people or companies to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. Our policy (which I don't personally support, by the way) is to err on the side of exclusion. It's arbitrary only in the sense that some violations of the policy don't get noticed immediately and others do. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been resisting commenting because you asked me to leave you alone, but you have four open requests, when only one open request is needed at a time. Please remove all but the one you wish to be reviewed. Adding additional requests does not speed up the process, which is conducted by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-ordered the postings to be in chronological order. Please place new postings at the bottom of the talk page, so that the discussion appears in the proper order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked me to leave you alone, I am trying to respect that. Would you like me to reply to your statement about me? 331dot (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

George_Mucus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Filing this again to try and get some eyes on this. It's funny how it's so easy to get blocked for arbitrary reasons but trying to follow the rules gets this kind of a delay.

EDIT: Done. Please note that I only would have filled out one if this process was more transparent and if you watched appeals as closely as you apparently watched infractions. :)

I have a lot of edits I would like to be making. I've been an enthusiastic user of this site for years and I really appreciate its existence. I'm trying to give back. How can one user have the authority to ban me indefinitely after my account has existed for ten minutes but then it takes a whole day to change my name to something less arbitrarily rule breaking? This whole thing is senseless. I know you're all volunteers, but it really wouldn't hurt to be a little more personable about this. I've done literally nothing to you people. At least say something. Christ. 311, your page says that you "assume good faith." I haven't seen an iota of that from you since you first randomly sniped at me. Come on, man.

EDIT: It's been a couple of days and nobody has clicked the button to rename me yet.

Decline reason:

I'm going to be blunt. I think unblocking you will be an entire waste of our time. When presented with our of our policies, you immediately attack the admin who advised you of it, and fought with them to the point you told them stay off your page? That type of behavior does not, for me at least, bode well that you will edit collaboratively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

George_Mucus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I was agitated because I was trying to edit a subject very dear to me and came up against a policy I saw as senseless. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect some sort of reaction when an authority figure is seemingly inflexible and opaque, do you? Try and understand my position. I don't think this is an unreasonable set of circumstances. I just wanted to edit my relative's page. Why can nobody seem to see where I'm coming from? If no one wants to let me contribute, at least pretend to see my side of things. This whole situation is obtuse and unreasonable!

Accept reason:

See discussion below. JBW (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You copied a declined request as your new request, so no new admin will see it. I was trying to help your request to be seen, but if that's abusive, sorry. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had said that in your edit notes rather than simply 'fixed.' I assumed hostility and I apologize for that. MucusArt (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your request now -- removing the word "reviewed" -- so that other admins will be able to see it. Is there anything else that needs to be added Joanne Daniels? I see your last edit there was because you were bothered by the "better reference" tag, but on the talk page you understood the clarification. I've not yet found any better reference -- has one been published in any of the Atlanta area news sources? If so, I'll be happy to get that into the article regardless of your current account status. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. The funeral came and went and I don't think any of the local news sources picked it up so my panicking over the timing of it all was for naught anyway. This whole thing kind of makes me feel foolish now. It's not what she would have wanted and it's certainly not something I want to associate with her. She had a vibrant personality. There was no missing her when she entered a room. She was generous in sharing her knowledge and experience. I don't suppose those are noteworthy enough for her article, but they were traits of hers that I would much rather have people pay attention to when they think of her.

Anyway, thank you for offering. I really do appreciate it. MucusArt (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about your unblock request.

I understand your sense of frustration, and I can very easily understand that it must be very annoying to come along intending to contribute to the encyclopaedia, only to find yourself blocked from doing so, for reasons which don't seem to make sense to you. I also personally don't agree with the username policy, so I can sympathise with you there. More relevant to your unblock request, however, is the fact that I don't see any problem with your editing serious enough to require you to remain ~~unblocked~~ blocked, rather than just being given advice on the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (as happened on the talk page of the article you edited, where you accepted the advice). All that would encourage me to favour unblocking you, and allowing you to continue editing. However...
You are not going to survive for long as a Wikipedia editor if you launch into diatribes against editors or administrators that you disagree with. Wikipedia administrators are tasked with enforcing Wikipedia policies. I have no idea whether the blocking administrator personally likes or dislikes the username policy, or has no opinion either way, but whatever his personal view, he was merely enforcing a policy which was created by the community of Wikipedia editors, not unilaterally by him. If you are to be unblocked, you will need to understand that, no matter how much you personally disagree with actions taken by other editors, you need to treat them with respect, and express your disagreement in a courteous manner. Unless you accept that, there will be little point in unblocking you, as you will just get blocked again, with far less likelihood of being unblocked again.

You may like to make some kind of response to those comments. If you do, that may help to resolve any doubts about whether to unblock you or not. 331dot may also like to comment on what I have said. (Since your last reply to 331dot was in a much more friendly tone than earlier ones, I guess that the request for him to leave you alone can be considered to be rescinded, so that you won't mind if he comments here.) JBW (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user got caught on the rough side of our anti-spam and username policies. There was no intent to spam, just to make some corrections and updates to to an article about a beloved relative who had recently passed. Let's get the rename done, allow the user to ease into Wikipedia culture without any more stress. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took some time away from Wikipedia and only noticed these messages when they hit my email inbox. I apologize for getting back to the discussion late, but I don't regret it. I think the time away allowed me to get some perspective. The policy is one that comes from a reasonable place and as much as I felt slighted by him, administrators like the original respondent are the sorts of people who keep things like Wikipedia running. I moderate a large subreddit, so I understand the sort of thankless work it is. You don't get any credit when things are humming along well and you get rained on when you rub someone the wrong way. I'm sorry to have contributed to that.

I shall address @JBW's concerns succinctly: I have edited Wikipedia anonymously for many years. I'm in my 30s and have used this site since High School. I've never been subject to an IP ban and I have never gotten into any flame wars or arguments of any real scale. I love this site and would love the chance to get back to contributing to it, preferably without exposing my IP address when I do so. I will happily change my name and continue to abide by site guidelines if afforded the chance to do so by the administrative staff. I apologize immensely for my initial anger. You caught me at sort of a raw time. I will do my utmost to undo this if given your collective forgiveness. Regardless of your decision, thank you for reading my spiel. MucusArt (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I fully accept what you say, and I also agree with what Jpgordon has said above. Clearly you are a good faith editor who unfortunately got into a bad spot, but we can put that behind us and move on. I am perfectly willing to rename and unblock your account. However, once your username is changed, if you try to log in under your old username, you will get a message telling you that the username or password is wrong, which might make you think that you have lost access to your account. You can in fact simply log in with the new username, and the same password as before, but I like to warn editors before changing the name, to avoid confusion. When you have read this message, post a message here telling me that you are ready for the name change to go ahead. JBW (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready for the change. Thank you so much for your understanding and for your faith.

I'll also keep that in mind and update my login lists accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. MucusArt (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block over

I have renamed your account from MucusArt to George Mucus, and unblocked it. I hope you will now be able to continue editing without similar problems in future. 🙂 JBW (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have my utmost thanks. Please look forward to seeing plenty of constructive edits from me going forward. I look forward to continuing to contribute what I can to this great project. George Mucus (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited People's Democratic Party of Tajikistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amanat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Modular Integrated Communications Helmet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SVR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good bot. I fixed it. George Mucus (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]