User talk:WikiDKarl
August 2016
[edit]
There have been two problems with this account: 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 or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.
If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, 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 a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth 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 kind of edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Widr (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
WikiDKarl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Support, I would like to unblock my account "Ghostcircle" so I can add a new page called "Ghostcircle" and link it to Wikipedia. The name Ghostcircle was setup as I wanted to create a page with a link to the name Ghostcircle which is a website http://www.ghostcircle.com to this wiki link here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringlestone_Inn and I didn't understand the rules about self promotion which is the reason this account was blocked. How can I proceed to add a new page for "Ghostcircle" and cite a link in Wikipedia to the cite ref below on the Ringlestone Inn which mentions Ghostcircle? Thanks. [1]
Decline reason:
The proposed new username is acceptable. However, the other elements of the block still need to be addressed. You will not be unblocked until:
- you agree to avoid creating or directly editing articles related to your organisation (requested edits will still be permitted)
- you agree to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and disclose your paid relationship in accordance with the paid contributor policy
- you indicate what areas of Wikipedia you intend to edit in the future
If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond writing about your organisation, then you will not be unblocked. If this is the case, I recommend you consider alternative outlets. Yunshui 雲水 16:16, 21 March 2018 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
WikiDKarl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand the terms and conditions and agree to them ,I want to make a contribution to Wikipedia and my area of interest is the paranormal. There is a critical analysis of the substance Ectoplasm which makes it look like there was always fraud involved, cited examples were cheese cloth which I don't disagree with as there was fraud by some mediums, but I have found that a scientist called Schrenck Notzing managed to capture this substance and make a chemical analysis of it. He wrote about his findings in his book and there is a reference to it here... http://physicalmediumship4u.com/2010/06/08/schrencks-chemical-analysis-of-obtained-ectoplasm/ I would like to cite this reference on the Ectoplasm page.
Decline reason:
That's not a reliable source. You can read WP:RS to understand reliable sources. I'm concerned if I unblocked you, you'd use unreliable sources like that to push your agenda. As such, I'm declining your unblock request. You might have more luck if you agreed to avoid writing about the paranormal and about pseudoscience, broadly construed. I'm concerned your conflict of interest is simply too strong for you to be neutral on this subject area. Yamla (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2018 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Please don't remove declined unblock requests while still blocked, as the next reviewing admin will need to see them all. I have reinstated it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
WikiDKarl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The paragraph has no balance in it. I'm add a fact to the paragraph. The article I am citing is referring to an experiment and chemical analysis on the substance of ectoplasm. The people who wrote the article originally just took all the "bad points" about ectoplasm, mixed in the element of fraud, and gave a once sided view. They had an agenda themselves? I'm sure it was done with their opinion that this is all pseudoscience and not paranormal, but at least an alternative view based on a fact; the analysis of ectoplasm took place it was captured by a scientist, and it was done under experimental conditions. So it should be allowed right? You can argue whether it's real or not but at least the fact that somebody managed to capture ectoplasm and analyse in a laboratory it was done. So, to remove the opinion that you said the source is unreliable, I will use a link to the book itself. It was published. I would like to cite an alternative source, the book itself. You can't say that this is dubious as it's been published. https://www.scribd.com/document/33169900/Phenomena-of-Materialisation-Albert-von-Schrenck-Notzing
Accept reason:
You know what, I'm actually going to allow this. The original block was for promoting Ghostcircle, and since you've changed your username and indicated that you aren't going to include links to that site any more, the block is no longer serving its purpose.
However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use Albert von Schrenck-Notzing, whose work on spiritualism has been heavily discredited for years, as a source for stating that ectoplasm is real. Please read this section of the guidelines on fringe theories. If you add Shrenck-Notzing as a source, two things will happen: your changes will be reverted and you will probably be blocked again. I would strongly recommend giving up this attempt to right great wrongs and finding some other subject area in which to edit. Yunshui 雲水 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
WikiDKarl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Accept reason:
Blocked
[edit]Well, you were warned. Very clearly warned by Yunshui. You've continued to violate WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, so I've blocked you indefinitely. I would support an unblock if but only if you agree to a topic ban around the paranormal and around pseudoscience, broadly construed. You've demonstrated your conflict of interest is too strong for you to be trusted in those areas. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
WikiDKarl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yamla. I have been totally upfront that this topic is unbalanced. I said I would like to edit this topic. I'm not making up names to change it. The people who originally wrote this article must have an interest in this, it's written with a negative bias that is so obvious. I was just adding to with some facts that I have found and they clearly show another opinion, based with citations. If we forget about the "pseudoscience" bit, and actually deal with balance then it's up to the reader to judge whether this is pseudoscience. It's not a conflict of interest to have an interest is it? Otherwise the wiki would have nothing on it. I'm not saying bigfoot exists, but I should have the right to say that people have seen him? You yourself have an interest being an editor, but to say that something does not exist when it has been investigated (the results have been published) is just censoring me. Let people be the judge.
Decline reason:
Your pushing of your WP:FRINGE views at Ectoplasm (paranormal) (including stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that ectoplasm has been scientifically analysed, and basing your additions on blatantly unacceptable WP:Fringe sources) showed how little you understood what you have been told so far. Wikipedia's requirements are that articles reflect the consensus of mainstream scientific thought, which is overwhelmingly that ectoplasm does not exist and that paranormal claims are at best unproven. Your comments here since your unblock make it abundantly clear that you are far too close to your own subject to write about it with the disinterested stance required by Wikipedia, and I agree with Yamla below that you should not be unblocked without a topic ban from paranormal subjects. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2018 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of WP:FRINGE. I'll leave it to another administrator to review the block as I am not willing to unblock you without you agreeing to the topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
WikiDKarl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I will agree not write about the paranormal, You have worn me down.
Accept reason:
I have unblocked you with a topic ban on the paranormal and on pseudoscience, broadly construed. Yamla (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)