User talk:CombatThisss

July 2014

Note: Melaleuca, Inc was turned into a redirect per a previous AfD, as consensus held that the company had no notability outside of the founder. Nothing in your recreation of the article counters that issue. If you wish to re-create an article, I suggest you start a discussion to establish if consensus has changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot revert based on previous AFD unless the article is essentially the same READ POLICY User:Barek. CombatThisss (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recreated article has the identical same issues. Different wording with the same issue does not invalidate established consensus. Granted, that consensus is somewhat dated, so feel free to start a discussion to determine if consensus has changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I suggest you start a discussion on this. Continued disruption can result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barek; really, an the founder's article becomes a WP:COATRACK for their company and ... taking this to Admin school. Continued disruption can result in desysopping. CombatThisss (talk)

Create a draft for it then, and get consensus to support the new article. The Draft namespace exists to allow an incubation area for new articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no, quote policy on that if that's true, or admit your COI in support of Melaleuca. I will take this to the admin noticeboard if you continue to abuse your status. No admin is supposed to revert within minutes with no chance to expand an article. How many hundreds about Melaleuca articles do you doubt are out there friend?CombatThisss (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of your repeated diruption, your assumption of bad faith by making multiple false accusations of my having a COI, and your overall battlefield mentality towards editing, I was already writing up an ANI post while you were posting here. See WP:ANI#Melaleuca, Inc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barek ... :)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring and personal attacks at Frank L. VanderSloot and related pages. 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) 01:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barek

The page has a long history of editors combatting RFC decisions. Please review the sources used, and previous postings, before just reverting to a redirect. Especially if it has been several years, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Vandersloot#Oil_of_Melaleuca.2C_Inc. down we basically have a coatracked article on Melaleuca inside the Frank L. Vandersloot page, I don't see the reason to treat this content with spite. A new AFD would appease me I guess ... however I guess you've decided to escalate to the point of an admin review. CombatThisss (talk) 01:16, 22 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I was expanding a new article that an admin wanted removed and redirected when I was blocked, without ever waiting to see what I created in the end, a block which was done because I was accussed of not following WP:AGF. Despite the irony of that, I was creating a very long article based on dozens of sources but was kicked off due to a years old AFD. I'd appreciate being able to show the vast amount of content and sources that make this page notable. This all happened rather fast considering I sourced all my content. CombatThisss (talk) 2:21 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:45, 22 July 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.

Whatever

Lol.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, CombatThisss! Thank you for your contributions. I am GeorgeLouis and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]