User talk:Harvadace1

Conflict of interest

Hello, Harvadace1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page User:Harvadace1/sandbox, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 21:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 21:05, 31 October 2019 (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).

Harvadace1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. Please unblock me. This is my first wikipedia article, and I am completely independent from the subject, eLaw.com. I am not a lawyer, I wrote it for altruism, and there seems to be paranoia here. I patterned the title after the wikipedia page, 'Pacer (law)'. Thank you.

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. ST47 (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2019 (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.

I'm about to look at this, but accusing others of paranoia is not a good way to start a relationship. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't quite see how you modeled this after PACER (law), since that article has a bunch of text, much of which seems decently encyclopedic, and dozens of references, some of them proper secondary sources. But maybe there is something you can do--you might could present us here with a decent first paragraph, of the encyclopedic kind, and a couple of real secondary sources. And if Athaenara feels like indeed you can write neutrally, according to our guidelines, they'll look more kindly on your unblock proposal, because I'm not going to consider unblocking unless they're OK with it. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (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).

Harvadace1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for your quick reply. First, I apologize for offending anyone; I am not used to this venue. Second, I am a big fan of Wikipedia, and I created the eLaw.com page because I am involved in a lawsuit and I thought that others might find it useful; the ability to look up lawsuit information online advances the cause of justice by lightyears. Third, the website eLaw.com was set up by the State of New York Judiciary. I don't work for them. In fact, I live in New Jersey. Fourth, I mentioned, 'Pacer (law)' because that too is a totally legitimate website, set up by the federal judiciary system, made for keeping people involved about the status of their lawsuits. Too, I only patterned the title of my wikipedia page after, 'Pacer (law)', due to their close connection (one handles federal cases, the other state, county, and local cases). Fifth, I have an unbelievable story to tell that I will let you in on. On the website, 'Quora.com', please look up my name, "John William Milner", and the question, "How did President Trump delete this tweet?". This is a matter that will eventually be filed in federal court. We have a huge problem with public oversight over our 3 branches of government, and eLaw.com is one tool in the public's toolbox of transparency to keep our officials honest. Crime Reporting, in the sense of keeping track of the number of lawsuits filed in the country, can easily occur with tools like Pacer and eLaw, and removed from the hands of prosecutors who vastly overstate the numbers. My crime, by the way, relates to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks being an inside job. So, now you know. I am the most credible person on earth. You can also visit my facebook site under my name, and a picture of George Washington, and read about, "The Man Who Won the War". Please do.

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. ST47 (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2019 (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.