User talk:Gonzopancho

Eric S. Raymond

Thank you for experimenting with the page Eric_S._Raymond on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. On talk pages, such as this one, you can use ~~~~ (four tildes) to sign your comments; however, contributions to the articles themselves shoudn't be signed. --Saucepan 18:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investigating whether Raymond contributed to BSD. I thought it was a possibility given what I could remember of Raymond's biography. Raymond sure does care a lot about his reputation, even if it means inflating his credentials. Unfortunately, working against one of Raymond's comrades, Russ Nelson, to clear this up on Wikipedia makes it even more difficult. --71.169.128.40 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Gonzopancho. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article PfSense, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply here and dislcose any relationship you have with pfSense and companies or organizations that own copyright or manage it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jim Thompson, I work at Netgate and am the only person here who can provide factual information about Netgate, ESF, pfSense or the OPNsense you seem to be very protective off. If you have any problem about my editing let me know.--Gonzopancho (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 31 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the FreeBSD page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at pfSense shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines, as you did at pfSense.

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 ~~~~}}. - TNT ^💖 21:41, 13 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I literally said who I am, but I'm blocked for failure to declare? That makes no sense.

Decline reason:

Per There'sNoTime and Jytdog's comments below. Your disclosure did not meet the requirements at WP:PAID, and is not in any case the main reason for the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 16 July 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.

Your "disclosure" did not meet the requirements of WP:PAYDISCLOSE - in 'letter' of the policy, nor in spirit. You were also, and primarily, blocked for advertising or self-promoting. Multiple editors have attempted to help you in good faith, but you were unresponsive to their concerns - TNT ^💖 21:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gonzopancho. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with a conflict of interest and don't understand that the community has a process for managing COI (just like there is a process in academic publishing). In Wikipedia, people with an unmanaged COI tend to edit promotionally and tend to behave badly, serving their external interest. I spend a lot of my time here engaging with editors who have an apparent COI, trying to educate them about that process, and about how Wikipedia works. Some people engage and become good citizens here.

You were given notice of the COI guideline way back in December 2016 and ignored it, and refused to engage with me as well.

When editors consistently ignore community policies and guidelines and refuse to even engage in discussion about such issues, we remove their editing privileges. That is what happened here.

If you would like an as-brief-as-possible orientation to Wikipedia and how it works, and why it works that way, please see User:Jytdog/How. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

this was always a specious block by people interested in destroying the pfsense page. Gonzopancho (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 20:15, 3 April 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.