User talk:Dchrisbrown

Welcome!

Hello, Dchrisbrown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Marquardtika (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 14 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been accused of using multiple accounts, however that is simply not the case. I work in a shared space and there are many people with access to the same network that I use. I have created wikipedia pages and made constructive edits in the past, without incident. I created a page just recently, which apparently didn't meet wiki standards, however I believe it did. When I tried to speak with the editor that kept refusing my page, he simply ignored my requests for more information. That said, I do not have multiple accounts, nor do I use Wikipedia in any other way than the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. I think an indefinite ban on editing is a bit extreme.

Decline reason:

You have both worked on the same inappropriate article. It strains credulity to believe you two are entirely unrelated. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

RE: my last request: I never claimed that I was unrelated to the other person editing the article, however I do claim that I am NOT the other person. I do know the other person that made edits to the article in the real world and they have the same interest in the page, however I did not ask that person to make edits, nor to engage in a back and forth with editors. If you can see the page, you'll see that I only made a few attempts to keep the article active on wikipedia. I even asked the editors who put in the immediate deletion request to explain why the page was inappropriate (but never got any additional details), considering there are many other pages of the same type. I apologize if any rules/guidelines were broken - it was not my intent to cause this whole situation or interfere with wikipedia. Rather, I just simply wanted to create a page to share information about a company. I think it's fair to say that my edits were not malicious and the page that I was trying to create was not fraudulent nor overly advertorial, but rather basic, factual information, cited from a reputable 3rd party, about the company. I had planned to add additional information to the page, once it had been created but never got the chance. All that said, the reason for me being blocked states that I used multiple accounts/sock puppetry, which is just not factual. Dchrisbrown (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There isn't really any reason for collusion at Bevel PR. As another CheckUser have checked this account, I will ask them for their findings first before making any permanent decisions on this unblock request. Procedurally declining this request for now based on the insufficient explanation toward behavioral evidence. Alex Shih (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2018 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Bevel PR Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bevel PR Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Claude Wasserstein for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claude Wasserstein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claude Wasserstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 15:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]