User talk:Hsbcn/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hsbcn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Archive of User talk for April 2010.
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 05:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hsbcn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'd appreciate knowing what exactly I've done to get blocked...
Decline reason:
This has been answered. Only one unblock request open at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
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've left a message on the talk page of the blocking admin asking for clarification. Syrthiss (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I see that you agreed, as part of your previous unblock, to refrain from using your own website as a source for images or references in articles - is this still the case? It's possible that the images you've been posting here caused some confusion, coming as they do from a site called "The Alloy-Valve Stockist", and being that your username seems to match that website, at least in part. I'll let Fastily explain further, but that coincidence caught my eye. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- For clarification, here is the text of my report to WP:AIV: User was previously unblocked under the condition that her website could not "be used as external links, references, or for images". This user has violated the terms of her unblock by recently posting an image from her company catalogue to butterfly valve. Steamroller Assault (talk)
Hsbcn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi: I still don't see how posting an image on the Butterfly valve page is in violation of what I agreed to. The image on the Butterfly Valve page is not an external link. I was blocked for posting external links, and agreed not to do so, and I haven't. So, why have I been banned again? Either way, I do wish to cooperate, and I didn't deliberately do anything wrong. If posting images that I've uploaded on relevant pages is in violation of the agreement, I was not aware of that; I didn't think (and still don't think) that that was part of our agreement. I still have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia, and wouldn't jeopardize it by posting an image. I ask to be please reinstated as I wasn't aware that this was a violation. Please delete the image from the Butterfly Valve page, if this is a problematic issue. Thanks Heather Smith 20:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No way. You agreed to never use images from Alloy Valves on Wikipedia any longer, as a condition of unblock. This is what you have done since then, which includes the uploading of images in clear violation of your very clear unblock conditions. I invited your contributions seriously; I approved your acceptance of those conditions seriously; I maintain that you have violated those serious conditions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
{{unblock|BWilkins:
Sorry, but the conditions didn't say that I can no longer update images. For ease of reference, please post a link to the part of the conditions that explicitly say so. You will see that there is no such condition.
To be clear, I'm not shortsighted nor as unreliable as you portray me in reference to sticking to our agreement: had I understood that I could no longer post images, I wouldn't do so.
The problem with the first block were external links. I have not placed external links on Wiki pages.
What you are referring to is basically a new condition; it's truly unfair that you use a new interpretation of the previous block to maintain the current block.
If I cannot post images, then make it easy: just s a y s o .
I ask to be unblocked; this block is not fair as it applied new conditions, and uses the old unblock conditions as a pretext.
I'm not asking for a favor; I ask that you be 1) clear and 2) fair.
Heather Smith 13:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)}}
This is what you agreed to. It's been quoted before, but you specifically agreed that "your company website or related websites cannot be used as external links, references, or for images" (emphasis added) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
BWilkins:
This whole thing started with my image post on the Butterfly Valve page. That issue seems to have fallen into the background; no-one's talking about that any longer, and I can't see how that violated the terms we agreed on.
The issue seems now to be my user page. I wasn't aware my user page was for public use or that restrictions applied to posts on one's own page; to be sure, I posted these images, links and references on a subpage of my own user page, as this page is not for public use. I've been using that page to keep track of the images I've uploaded. My user page is considered a Wikipedia page/article?
If this is not an acceptable use of my user page, it's due to ignorance, and I understand why you'd consider this a violation of the terms. But this was not deliberate; you can tell because I've observed our terms of unblock in all my non-user-page activity.
Again, I appreciate your time, I'd appreciate clarifications on what's acceptable (for example, use of my user page; should I deleted links/references). Above all, I ask that you be fair in your judgement, which includes giving Wiki non-pros like myself a fair chance at getting things right.
I believe I still have a lot to contribute and would like to continue to do so. Please allow for that to happen.
Thanks Heather Smith 14:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- YES: all pages on Wikipedia belong to Wikipedia. That said, on April 22 you uploaded the Butterfly Valve image. You then added it to an article. ANY image upload that has been related to your corporate website since your unblock has been a deliberate violation of the conditions you agreed to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
BWilkins:
This isn't going anywhere, because of a key point. I've been trying to convey to you that I was unaware the posting on my user page was a violation.
Moreover, my post on Butterfly Valve had no links or references, whilst the references on the upload page are tagged appropriately to acknowledge the source.
I was not banned from posting images, and you are applying our agreement with an unfair interpretation.
You say the violation is deliberate, the only word you add emphasis to in your final response. You may be a Wiki Administrator, but in real life you are not omniscient. You would do yourself, me and all other Wiki contributos a favor by not assuming you actually know the people's intentions. You have truly failed to decipher mine, for one.
Future Wiki users would benefit from Administrator responses that don't need to resort to passing judgement but can argue their cases based on the merits of each case.
I cannot accept that you apply a new criterion to our agreement and uphold the block. I ask you to kindly review my request, evaluate if you want us to reach a clearer agreement, and above all refrain from judging what my intentions are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alloyvalves (talk • contribs)
- I have for the second time turned your unblock request into a post - you are only allowed to have one unblock request at a time - you merely need to reply to the posts. You were blocked for uploading images related to your corporation, contrary to your original unblock - it does not matter where they were used. I would highly recommend reading WP:GAB, but as based on your replies you simply do not get it: my response would be to decline, as you are really not dealing with the situation. I will not deal with your unblock - someone else can. My recommendation is unfortunately clear, and more solidified by your responses. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Heather, what would your future contributions be to Wikipedia if you were unblocked? I would make the unblock contingent on a change to a more personal username. RJ (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi RJ:
I'd offer technical and mechanical knowledge on the following subjects:
A. valve pages (for example globe and check valves) B. industrial processes pages (for example cryogenics, nuclear, HF acid) C. alloy pages (for example inconel, duplex).
I can do so as a contributor as well as an informed reader of other user's edits.
A word about images, such as the one on the Butterfly Valve page which prompted this block. I have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia image wise. I have done so without posting external links or references on valve, alloy and industrial process pages, as was the case with my post on the Butterfly Valve page. Will I be allowed to continue to make similar posts?
Please rename my account hsbcn (my initials plus the abbreviation for Barcelona).
Thanks Heather Smith 23:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Adding tons of images to the valves articles caught my eye...many (most) of the images are not necessary and in some cases cluttering and off-topic on many of the pages. See Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement. Wikipedia needs good text supported by images, it's not an annotated photo album. A dozen images of the same type of valve that differ only in the type of metal (images are same except "how shiny" for example), or lots of pictures of the exterior of a valve body on an article devoted to a certain type of valve mechanism don't contribute to understanding of the topic. The images all come from the same source (which sounds like some company you're affiliated with). That comes across as spam. I don't see anything superior about the alloyvalves "free" collection of images, yet you had seemed hell-bent on adding as many of them to as many articles as possible, even when they were not directly related (image of random screws?) or there were already similar or even clearer images (for example again, bodies replacing mechanisms).
- I support the existing block, since you apparently violated the explicit terms of your unblock even in mainspace (i.e., ignoring your userspace) by adding the butterfly image which is sourced to your apparent company--you were forbidden from adding such images. I would consider an unblock if you refrain from adding images that do not contribute something substantially new and on-topic to the existing image set in articles. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- DMacks:
Thanks for your feedback. The images I've posted have generally been kept on the pages. If users were massively up in arms about them, those images wouldn't be there any longer. The image on Butterfly Valve, for example is still there; surely people visit that page and still none have removed the image.
In sum, I agree to continue to apply the policy you refer to, though I can't see how my Butterfly Valve image post is in contradiction with that. The images you refer to are prior to the previous block.
Heather Smith 10:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am for giving you another chance subject to a username change and a re-emphasis that you agree to not add references to or images from your website. I am sure you have other interests than alloy valves. I recommend that you pursue contributing to one of these interests and learning about what is acceptable on wikipedia before returning to alloy valve topics. How about a total ban on alloy valve topics? RJ (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- RJ:
As mentioned, I don't object to a usename change, but a ban on my main area of interest and expertise is a bit radical.
The current block is specifically image-related, so I'd agree to not posting alloy valve images on articles for a duration of time which I invite you to define. Thereafter, I will only post in accordance with Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement which I believe I've adhered to since the previous block (which was not image related).
Heather Smith 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a "image vs. non image" question, you were blocked for the exact same reason each time: You were pushing your own sites and files. Your first unblock was quite specific speaking of both external links AND images among other things, as you requested the link was supplied above. This is not acceptable and your responses make me think that you either do not understand this or are just refusing to get the point that has been said above multiple times and trying to wikilawyer your way to an unblock where you can then again refuse to listen and find some other "loophole" to push your site. Unless you can make it clear that you actually understand the problem then it is highly unlikely you are going to be unblocked. James (T C) 19:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If you agree to an indefinate ban on alloy valve related topics, I support your unblock - end of story for me. RJ (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- RJ:
It's clear that I'm not particularly welcome on the valve pages, so I'd agree to your unblock proposal and will find new avenues of contributing to non-valve articles.
Heather Smith 22:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Heather: To change your username, see Wikipedia:Changing username. I look forward to seeing you around User:hsbcn RJ (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)