User talk:Dreasterly

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Legion of Merit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. EricSerge (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your custom signature

You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box. (It might already be empty.)
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

August 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not attempting to use my page as an advertisement. I thought I was supposed to ad [] to the official Army units so they could be fact checked. I understand i am not to use this for advertisement or to make money, I apologize if that is what you tough my internet was. May I request to be unblocked, R/Thomas M. easterly.

Decline reason:

Closing this request as you don't indicate any other areas in which you might edit. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2021 (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.

Please review the user page guidelines; your user page is a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user, it is not article space or space to draft an article, or otherwise tell anything and everything about yourself. What edits will you make if unblocked? Would you agree to, at least for a time, not attempt to write an article about yourself? 331dot (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, my apologies R/Thomas

What will you edit about? 331dot (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason= Wikipedia Admins good afternoon, I request to have my Dreasterly page reinstated. I added hyperlinks to my Army awards and Army acronyms so people who go here will be able to reference them. What did I do wrong? Please read my page, I am a retired Army Soldier, Army veteran, and a DA civilian. I just defended my dissertation and was adding that to my page. I am not Spamming or Advertising any products. P.S. I do donate to the Wikipedia cause. R/Thomas

Thanks for donating, but that's handled by the Wikimedia Foundation, not us editors. You have agreed to not edit about yourself above, but you have not yet said what you will edit about instead. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: It's true that he said he agreed, but he also asked that "his" page be reinstated, which clearly shows that he still wants to use Wikipedia as a webhost.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Dreasterly, have you changed your mind? 331dot (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, I do use Wikipedia page to keep my data current and by doing this it draws potential users and subscribers, I have over 5,000 linked-in users. I do this to keep track of my life and career, as do millions of others who pay people to compile a Wiki page on their behalf e.g. celebrities, of which I am not. Additionally, your reason for blocking me is incorrect (Spamming/Advertising) The only advertising, if you use the term loosely, are hyperlinks to Army awards and Army units. Nevertheless, I will be glad to delete the page, I just want my content back (or if you do not mind you can email it to me as a PDF) so I can save it, as it took years to get it right, thank you for your time. R/Thomas

Not every statement needs to be an unblock request; subsequent comments should be standard comments. The text can be emailed to you(though not as a PDF). Millions do not pay to have articles(not "wiki pages"), at least not without the paid editing disclosure. If you have no contributions you want to make at this time, we can email you the text and close this matter. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had Kidney cancer (RCC) 5 years ago, would that be considered a page contribution if I speak about that journey on my page?

I think that you misunderstand what your user page (the page you had edited) is for. It is not a social media style page where you can tell anything and everything about yourself. It is a place for the named person to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor primarily. Some limited personal information is permitted, but not everything about yourself. Describing your kidney cancer journey would be outside the scope of your user page. If you were to attempt to create an actual article about yourself, your personal recollections would not be appropriate for it, as an article about you would only summarize what independent reliable sources say about you, not what you say about yourself. I've sent the text to you in an email. If there's nothing else you wish to edit, I will close this matter. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot and Bbb23 good evening, I hope I have corrected my email. I can only say that this was not a positive outcome for either of us. You have lost me and my associates as Wikipedia users. I will say that before you delete a page you might want to reach out to the person in advance to reconcile the issue, not all of us are not experts at this. My page may not have been by the Wikipedia standard (my fault), but it was a good informative page where people could visit and be inspired that a kid from Detroit accomplished so much. That page has been there for years and now it's a bad page and you delete it without the slightest reservation or hesitation. I understand customer service and find this to be just wrong. No one may care or ever see this but I feel Wikipedia can do a better job at customer service. However, I understand this is your job and you are very good at it.

331dot, this is on your site, based on your page and (AGF) deleting someone's account is not a show or assumption that the user was acting in good faith. It states on your Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:331dot that you assume we are acting in good faith. sir/ma'am, that is untrue. If you delete a page without even talking to us the user that is not assuming we are acting in good faith. The exceptions are as stated below and I agree in those areas extreme measures should be taken.

"Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around.

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others."

in closing this is business and as such I will wish you and the Wikipedia team a great weekend. Regards Thomas

Dreasterly, it is obvious that your only reason for being on Wikipedia was to have a free webhosting service so you could post your resume. Yes, we assume good faith, but that's not a suicide pact. Your complaint rings hollow: what you wanted was a webhosting service, and you couldn't get it. You couldn't explain what it was besides posting your resume that you wanted to be on Wikipedia for, and lo and behold, you were blocked--which is in perfect agreement with our guidelines. So actually there is no disagreement: you want something for free that we cannot give you, and now you are taking this personally, attacking one of my colleagues--but where we go one, we go all. I'm sorry, I will have to revoke access to this talk page: your comments here do not indicate you are actively working on getting unblocked so you can contribute positively to our beautiful project. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]