User talk:LocalLANerd

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, WRCosA. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Your edit summary indicates your association. Please be very, very careful. Bazj (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRCosA, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi WRCosA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic games

You have been adding information about the 2028 Summer Olympics, which are tentatively to take place in Los Angeles. However, the source you are citing is a plan for the 2024 Olympics. This very large discrepancy makes the information you are adding of dubious reliability and likely just speculative. Will you consider removing your edits until a more reliable source can be located? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2028 plan is identical to the 2024 plan. so no, I am not going to remove edits that I worked so hard on. If someone wants to add an additional source then they are free to do so. Since I have added sources, there is no good reason to remove the hard work that I have already put into this. --WRCosA (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss at Talk:2028 Summer Olympics. Cordially, --WRCosA (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Tom Petty. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 09:45, 12 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

To suggest that I am using this for spam purposes is absurd. I simply update wikipedia pages, include useful information that is relevant to articles. How this could be spam is beyond me. This looks more like an attempt to engage in censorship and to obstruct my first amendment right which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. To suggest that my username is spam makes even less sense and contradicts the concept of logic. I have been using this username for my entire time on wikipedia and no one ever gave me grief over this. Perhaps someone else is editing from my IP address and putting up spam, but it sure isn't me who is doing that. I have actually removed spam from wikipedia pages I have edited. I have a track record of making very useful contributions and none of what I put up gets reverted for being "spam". I look at my recent edits and none of them have been reverted because it is being classified as spam. This is a grave miscarriage of justice and a clear and present violation of my constitutional rights

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request is required at a time. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:00, 14 November 2017 (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.

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Free_speech. Your "constitutional rights" don't apply on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an extension of the American government. I'm not going to assess this unblock request, but I wanted to point out that your argument based on your "rights" being violated is flawed. Additionally, your username certainly can be see as promotional as it represents your company. only (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My company? Are you shitting me? It's not my company. My family has had NOTHING to do with it since 1955. I was born in the 90s. So no, It's not my company. So my constitutional rights don't apply on wikipedia? Maybe I should give my lawyer a call and see what he says! --WRCosA (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the useful edits I have made to wikipedia have helped me deal with my bi-polar depression. It gives me something to do when I have downtime. By preventing me from using wikipedia, you are potentially hurting me emotionally. --WRCosA (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should take a look at no legal threats. only (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I retract the above statements about consulting my lawyer. It was an "in the heat of the moment" reaction. Please forgive me as I am kind of upset. I should not let my emotions cloud my judgement. Please accept my apology. --WRCosA (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

LocalLANerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

You will see that my edits on wikipedia have been productive. Please give me a chance to show that I can make useful contributions with a neutral username.

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request is needed at a time. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the rename (from User:WRCosA), and someone else will review your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

I have every intention of making useful edits. My new username is neutral and if you look at my edits, you will see a clear history of me making useful edits. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Only one open unblock request is required at a time. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:01, 14 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here When you look at my history of wikipedia edits, you will see that I have made useful edits and contributions. In fact, they have been made in timely manors and I have helped keep things very up-to-date. That is in no way an act of "spam" as it had been suggested. I am not trying to sell anything or looking for financial gain as there are much better methods of making money available. I edit wikipedia to be helpful. Today we live in a world where facts are constantly under attack and I try my best to maintain facts on wikipedia articles. When I have seen speculative edits that are unsourced, I remove them immediately because we really can not afford to be putting misinformation out. My edits show an attention to the fine details, which is so important. I changed my username to a neutral one, so no one can say that my username is in any way promotional. If you unblock me, you will see that my edits are useful and productive.

Decline reason:

Despite these nice words, you have been blatantly promoting your relative, and I really doubt all the detailed content you wrote about him is true. Or are you saying that the Chrysler Building didn't have heating for more than a decade until it was installed in 1951? Seriously? I couldn't find anything at all about the Chrysler building in the cited source. I don't think you'll be unblocked unless you agree not to write about your relative or his company, widely construed. Huon (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2017 (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.

--LocalLANerd (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have been very reasonable with my requests here. If someone would be as so kind to explain why this block has yet to expire, I would appreciate that. I think this is on the excessive side in all fairness. When could I be unblocked? Is there a timeline or will my account be forever silenced? I would appreciate some feedback. --LocalLANerd (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, with that - talkpage access revoked. SQL ^{Query me!} 14:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of William R. Cosentini

The article William R. Cosentini has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. Sources are census data, a marriage announcement and a passing mention; that's all. Google Books and Google Web give no useful hits.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]