User talk:Allancass

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since 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 to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of FolderSize

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on FolderSize requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of FolderSize

Hello Allancass,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged FolderSize for deletion, because it seems to be an promotion, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, GailTheOx (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:FolderSize.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FolderSize.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Folder Size.png

Thanks for uploading File:Folder Size.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted on the image page that Wikipedia has received permission to use the file. Allancass (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Hello, Allancass. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article FolderSize, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:FolderSize Main Window.png

Thanks for uploading File:FolderSize Main Window.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello Allancass. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Timesheet, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Allancass. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Allancass|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam

I am not paid for adding that resource. It is a completely free resource that does not even require signing up, nor it requires any user information. It is a good free online tool directly related to the times sheet page. I believe it will be a useful resource for people that are interested in that topic, but if you think that I am wrong you can remove it.

Thank you.

Have a great day. Allancass (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mindgems.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.mindgems.com

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Allancass (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes but don't address this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2024 (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.

You blocked me because I reverted the vandalism by Sam Kuru who deleted half of the content on the 2 pages? Please look at the content that was carefully extended and followed the Wikipedia guidelines. As requested by other moderators in the 2 articles, I had added quotes from independent sources. How do you qualify that as promotion? On top of that my actions in no way fall in the block policy punishment guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

These pages are more than 10 years on Wikipedia. First Sam Kuru came and destroyed the content, now you Suffusion of Yellow revert the changes and put a ban on my account for no reason.

I ask an independent moderator to check the content in question which obviously is in no way promotional as it is listing free tool and restore the pages and lift this inadequate ban.

Thank you! Allancass (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that this is now a checkuser block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please read what I wrote and check my claims? Allancass (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for no reason

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).

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

Request reason:

You blocked me because I reverted the vandalism by Sam Kuru who deleted half of the content on the 2 pages? Please look at the content that was carefully extended and followed the Wikipedia guidelines. As requested by other moderators in the 2 articles, I had added quotes from independent sources. How do you qualify that as promotion? On top of that my actions in no way fall in the block policy punishment guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

These pages are more than 10 years on Wikipedia. First Sam Kuru came and destroyed the content, now you Suffusion of Yellow revert the changes and put a ban on my account for no reason.

I ask an independent moderator to check the content in question which obviously is in no way promotional as it is listing free tool and restore the pages and lift this inadequate ban.

Thank you!

Decline reason:

As far as I can tell, you've done nothing but promote your own website/business for over 15 years. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:52, 5 January 2024 (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.

Allancass (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've already had this unblock request declined. I very strongly urge you not to deliberately waste our time making the exact same unblock request again. Additionally, you must address your violations of WP:COI and WP:SOCK as well as WP:SPAM. --Yamla (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not spammed anything and that can be easily checked. Please read my message and check your facts instead of replying with aggressive messages. I am on Wikipedia since it exists! Allancass (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon

How editing and adding " citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources." as requested by other editors is considered spam or promotion? I once again ask you to look at the edits - if you had checked them you would see that I have neither promoted nor spammed.

Thank you! Allancass (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read all the blocking policy

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).

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

Request reason:

Regarding:

WP:COI As I previously noted I am not paid to edit those articles. They list popular FREE tools.

WP:SOCK I read the section - I did not know that I am bound to one account and that I should not edit using IP. I will not do that anymore.

WP:SPAM I have not spamed - I reverted citations and references to reputable online sources like PC Magazine, Cnet etc. The only other resource that I linked was an absolutely free time-sheet calculator - not freemium, not feature-limited. All I did is to revert the deletions of Sam Kuru which I believe only harmed the page as the deleted content was mainly references to reputable sources. After reading the COI section I think I should have better asked him to review and revert his deletions or ask other editor to do that.

I believe that the aim of Wikipedia is to provide information and related useful resources and my edits were in good faith. I will not edit the pages directly again, but I ask you to lift this ban so that I can message other contributors. I could create and use another account from a different IP, but this account is registered for years and I have never faced such rude and agressive behavior on Wikipedia before. After reading the blocking policy and the fact that I have not done anything harmful, I really believe that blocking my account is overexaggerated.

Thank you.

Allancass (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Threatening to engage in further deceptive sock puppetry to subvert our blocks is a bad idea. Also, it seems like we're simply not going to make any progress here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2024 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.