User talk:Xicano's Blog
June 2012
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Social Darwinism with this edit does not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 11:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Why can't I edit Wikipedia?
Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
- Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?
Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
- What can I do now?
If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
Xicano's Blog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
- Add the text
{{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}on your user talk page. - Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 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}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Xicano's Blog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
- Do you understand why your edits were reverted? You weren't blocked just for the user name, but also because the only thing you've done is add links to "Xicano's Blog". Drmies (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Xicano's Blog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes despite your apparent condescending assumption that I have some cognitive deficiency I am aware that I have only posted links. This was not an attempt at shameless self-promotion rather I hadn't mustered up the confidence to contribute text. Your blocking me does not help in this regard. Rather I find it to be somewhat of a gatekeeping tactic. I intended on providing insightful, well-formed/developed content which I feel your website could benefit from. I feel that your actions were quite unwlecoming which your website says you should be to new users. Your response to my initial appeal are proof positive of this.
Decline reason:
One request at a time, please. Max Semenik (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2012 (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.
Xicano's Blog (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC
Xicano's Blog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First and foremost let me thank you for taking Wikipedia so seriously and appologize for my violation of the username and external links policies (I hadn't noticed until several hours after that user Solara attempted to warn me of my violation) set out as to make Wikipedia a trusted source for information. Let me expand on my grievance and at the same time demonstrate that I have taken the time to research your policies.
Wikipedia on your conduct: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." "Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct."
I feel you bit me and this is a clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia on biting: "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than administrators only."
Wikipedia on my conduct: "...ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them."
Wikipedia on the subjective nature of your decision:
"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I feel that because of my academic specialization I could be considered notable:
"1. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. 2. An academic who is not notable by these guidelines could still be notable for non-academic reasons. 3. It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; seeWikipedia:Verifiability."
Decline reason:
First of all, this is not a court of law, so selective citation of policies will not help. Second, we block users with promotional usernames on sight, in full compliance with our policies. Third, spammers who ignore warnings they receive and reinsert their links also get blocked. Your block was absolutyely justified. Please explain what kind of edits do you intend to make if unblocked. Here are a few key questions:
- Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
- Do you understand conflict of interest?
- Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?
You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Max Semenik (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2012 (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.
Xicano's Blog (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Xicano's Blog → Xicano SL,UT
[edit]
- Current name: Xicano's Blog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
- Requested name: Xicano SL,UT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
- Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
- For global renamer: rename user
- Datestamp: 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reason: I I feel that my quotes above answer your question to some degree insofar as it says I have read these policies. I understand each of them as well, again I resent the condescending assumption that I have a cognitive deficiency which prevents me from understanding the above guidelines and policies. My apologies for attempting to demonstrate my willingness to understand this block which occurred a mere 12 minutes after my first warning which seems punitive not preventative. I understand that if my edits are as shortsighted, unbalanced and reactionary as how I feel this block and subsequent communications from administrators are, that Wikipedia risks becoming even more unreliable. I will not self promote and will offer balanced, well-researched, verifiable edits. I do feel that my quoting of policies is very appropriate as it demonstrates my willingness to do research before I provide any input as to make it verifiable. Administrators who act as judge, jury and prosecution should also be willing to admit their faults. Unbiased camaraderie should be diligently adhered to and I feel that it has not been herein. Due diligence is required when editing and I have a hard time accepting the rationale for this block when the same due diligence, I feel, was not headed in reaching and enforcing this decision. I don't wish to circumvent your "3 important principles" outlined above by changing my username. Perhaps I'll make edits to such topics as McCarhyism, Microagression, or Internet Censorship of course using verifiable sources in my own words: sounds like you all are circumventing copyright laws and don't like original research because the contributors have copyrights to the content). Please explain to me how you have any content at all then. Is wikipedia a glorified "book report" site? All in all, I take full ownership over MY actions which got me blocked. Ultimately I feel that I have to explain myself to administrators of an "encyclopedic" website who demonstrate behaviors contrary to their own policies: :"Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than administrators only." "...you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them." Discouraging my critical analysis of the above administrators actions is also contrary to policy: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." Xicano's Blog (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Xicano's Blog (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)