User talk:Ottosfreund

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).

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

Request reason:

1. reason: there has not been published any advertising/promotion 2. there is no edit in any connection/mission/order of the Otto-Lilienthal-Museum, that is suggested by the Username. I used this name in German wikipedia in connection with first edits, but it is a personal one

Decline reason:

When User:OLMuseum says "We (Otto Lilienthal Museum Anklam", you'll find it difficult to argue afterwards that the username doesn't refer to the Otto Lilienthal Museum. Wikipedia (at least the English Wikipedia) doesn't allow shared or "organization" accounts nor usernames that imply shared use as yours does. Huon (talk) 00:21, 3 June 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.

The page titled Otto Lilienthal Museum was created by this account. Many of your edits have been to associated articles also. Another administrator will be along shortly to review your block. -- Longhair\^talk 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this edit mentions, "We, Otto Lilienthal Museum...". Accounts may only be used by one person and not shared within a group or organisation. -- Longhair\^talk 23:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

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. Longhair\^talk 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, OLMuseum. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 23:08, 2 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I've been retired since 2020/1/1 There is not a conflict in username/profession Ottosfreund (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2020 (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.

Unblock discussion

If you are "retired" there is no need to unblock you. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are clearly editing about Otto Lilienthal Museum and Otto Lilienthal and spamming links to /www.lilienthal-museum.de. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh retired from the museum. You clearly have a conflict of interest. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon, Longhair, and Yamla: I'm about to lay on my standard User:Deepfriedokra/decline promo renamed decline. Are there any further unblock issues? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reply below covers it well. I don't see additional issues preventing an unblock, though I'd advise Ottosfreund to familiarize himself with WP:Verifiability and dispute resolution on Wikipedia; removing sourced content based on the mere assertion that the source is wrong will lead to problems. Huon (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ottosfreund (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC) The reasons for my block are not relevant anymore. I have changed my username (1. reason) and I have been retired since 2020/1/1 (second)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time.

To be unblocked:

you must confirm that this account is used by one individual only
you must agree to not link to www.lilienthal-museum.de. or directly edit articles about Otto Lilienthal Museum and Otto Lilienthal (requested edits will still be permitted).
you must agree to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and disclose any paid relationship in accordance with the paid contributor policy
(Please read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID)
you must indicate what areas of Wikipedia you intend to edit in the future

If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond writing about Otto Lilienthal Museum and Otto Lilienthal, then you will not be unblocked. If this is the case, I recommend you consider alternative outlets.

So we know understanding is mutual, please state your understanding/response to each item in your own words.

(any other admin should feel free to modify these conditions or unblock at their discretion.)

 --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:12, 3 June 2020 (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.

my answer:

accout is only used by one person (me)
if you see any problem in using the online archives of the museum as a source - o. k. - I will find alternative ones
There is/was no paid relationship
my topics: early aviation and related / transfer german-english wikipedia

Ottosfreund (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

please see below (end). I have not got a decision - my answers to questions from June, 6.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2020 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

one's again: there is no decision since June, 6., see above of talk

Accept reason:

OK, as answered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ottosfreund (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]