User talk:FMPCliveCussler68

Your username

Your username matches a real person. Please change it. See WP:CHU and Wikipedia:UNAME#Real_names. You also removed sourced material, which is a no-no. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Nakon 05:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our user name matches a real name because we are that real person. We are the legal authoritative for Mr. Cussler's on line interests.

We appreciate your concern and keeping an eye out here in wiki land.

We are not spamming if you would take the time to research what we are editing and posting; as opposed to your over reaction measures. Somehow you feel you determine the correctness of other here by taking such uneducated measures resulting in the overzealous power you chose to exhibit upon another wiki user.

Your actions are unwarranted please rectify immediately

Kindest Regards.

June 2009

The recent edit you made to James Sandecker constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Nakon 05:29, 30 June 2009 (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).

FMPCliveCussler68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While we applaud the efforts to everyone there at Wiki admin we do feel sharing our viewpoint or opinion should not be meet with personal spite or vindictive actions because one is in a postion to wield such. In such a case we would hope one who is empowered with such a highly regarded position to oversee such would see the importance from refraining to act in such a manner. With regards to the comment regarding a shared account. Please provide the evidence and reasoning behind you statement so we may understand how you came to this conclusion. This account is not a shared account. With the nature of Wiki being such an open source so to speak of contributions, as we all know those contributions are not always monitored for accuracy and appropriateness; while the intention of such a perfect mechanism in any manner would be applauded; unfortunately that is simply not the case. As Wiki becomes larger everyday the potential for abuse grows. While we did applaud the efforts of those involved in this process; showing our gratitude in our original unblock request and comments we do feel it is appropriate to also offer up our criticisms as well. We would hope that Wiki is about this and respects those of us encumbered by your decisions. Some of us are simply trying to effectively and efficiently see to the task we have been assigned to. Which is a multi step review of Mr. Cussler's works and associations. For us this will come as a broad approach then a more garanular approach as the copendium of information to be reviewd is very time consuming. As those there at Wiki should be aware. Also, we would not expect many individuals to be tasked with the knowledge and eyes for what we are looking for(reviewing); revising and attempting to point those interested in Mr. Cussler to the appropriate forums for such up-to-date information and forums of individuals that can share such. This may even come in the form of a social network portal or externally linked reference. While those of us who may be more or less familiar with technology and the internet, there are still a considerable number of others whom are not. Lets not take for granted our experience and overly apply our opinion to such that it excludes potentially informative, resourceful or other informative forums as may be the case with a living person and there ongoing works in this lifetime from those less familiar. Please feel free to point out any and all other issues we may have overlooked. We hope criticism is taken non-personal there but also understand the very important position you are all in. For those of us on the outside whom are not empowered with your positions directly we are have however duly encumbered in dealing with a task and wealth of information to cover. The blocking of an account does not help us to attempt our tasks in a timely matter. One could presume that there is a dichotomy of sorts with those in power positions whom attempt to make determinations on issues that wiki itself is the mechanism for; thus this in itself would seem contrary to policy and purpose. If one would like to talk about editors you should ask to speak with Mr. Cussler as he has much experience in working with the likes of such. The best to everyone.

Decline reason:

Thanks for your unblock request. On a minor stylistic note, brevity is appreciated not least because Wikipedia admins are volunteers. Regarding the suggestion your account is shared, the use of first person plural 'we' implies multiple persons, and thus a shared account, which isn't allowed. Regarding your editing pattern, using the article talk page to propose the addition of external link(s) is usually uncontraversial, however continuing to add links after receiving warnings normally results in a block. At this stage, I'm not going to unblock, however if you could address the apparent sharing of your account, and give assurances about not continuing your editing pattern, then an unblock could be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2009 (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.

Since declining the unblock, I've received an email from this user, and I no longer consider an unblock is possible. PhilKnight (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]