User talk:Thegontlit

Welcome!

Hello, Thegontlit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to University of Calgary. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Based on your username, it would appear your purpose here is to promote (create wider awareness of) the underground paper. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, part of the issue is your username. Because you have a conflict of interest, it is critical that you demonstrate the notability of the underground paper via independent reliable sources. The Jacko makes extensive use of independent sources; none were cited for the Gontlit. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abusing multiple accounts, and harrassment. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Step hen 00:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Unjustified-- no harassment done, second account made because of assumed C.FRED suggestion}}

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).

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

Request reason:

I was not harassing anyone. I made a second account because C.Fred said specifically that part of the issue was my original username. I thought he was saying for me to make a new one... Also please review what I have written. I have done nothing to harass anyone. Everytime one of these moderators or whatever they are called mentioned I should review x, I reviewed x. I left edit summaries, I made sure it wasn't a conflict of interest Please review this case and please have me unblocked

Decline reason:

First, I want to say that while your other username was blocked for being too similar to C.Fred, which I agree with, I do not feel that it's necessary to block you for harassment or for abusing multiple accounts; I say, you didn't do those things, so we should move on to the issues that really matter. That said, you are here to push content about The Gontlit, an organization you are obviously closely affiliated with, against community standards. In order to be unblocked, you will have to agree to change usernames to an appropriate username; after two attempts I hope you will understand that we want to review your choice, so you will need to pick a username, ensure that it is not already in use by checking Special:Listusers, and include it in any future unblock request. Furthermore, your inappropriate editing over The Gontlit needs to stop; I find it telling that you refuse to agree to abide by our core standards regarding verifiability of content when you are aware you would be unable to do so and yet have information on The Gontlit included in Wikipedia. I feel that C.Fred's offer was generous: I would want you to agree to abide by WP:BESTCOI regarding all edits relating to The Gontlit, which effectively means you cannot add any material yourself but must only attempt to convince others of its merits. Mango juice^talk 04:08, 19 August 2009 (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.

Thegontlit (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from user filing WP:UAA complaint. Yes, I did suggest that a new username would be in order. The problem is your choice was enough of a variant of my name that I felt it was a personal attack against me.

As far as conflict of interest, your change of username will not remove the conflict of interest. Your initial choice of the name suggests you have a connection with the blog.

That said, blocks are intended to be preventative, and I will endorse your unblock on the following conditions:

You select a new username which does not violate the username guidelines - specifically the guidelines against using the name of an organization/publication and against usernames that are confusing or harass other users.
Your first edit after unblocking is to request a change of username to the username you selected in step 1.
You provide an independent reliable source before adding mentions of the Gontlit to any article - or you refrain entirely from adding it. (The blog itself is not independent.)

Please reply below; you need not use the unblock template in replying to this message. Other admins, feel free to unblock if User:Thegontlit agrees to the terms above. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Okay, it does have KFC in its name. So I will gladly change it. 2. Not entirely sure how to do so, but I will read into it. At the worst can I just create a new account? 3. No. I will not agree to this. I find this completely biased and illogical. The only point of reference the Actual Student Newspaper The Gauntlet uses is ITSELF. You are asking me to go above and beyond what you've previously deemed to be fair. This is not fair, and I ask that you either remove the Gauntlet page (unless you can find secondary sources as you are asking me) or you allow the 2 sentence subsection to stay.

I would also like to prove that C.Fred is biased in his decisions in that he cites this was a personal attack. On the Personal attack page it does NOT say in the subsection "What is considered to be a personal attack" anything regarding "close variants of a name" or anything of that matter to which he accused me of. However it does say:

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." is a personal attack.

How can you accuse someone of harrassment or a personal attack when the act in question is not documented in the criteria of what is considered to be a personal attack, yet say I am making a personal attack? Do you see me making any legal threats? Making fun of your race? Threatening to reveal something private of yours? No. You abused your powers, and it wasn't nice. I did nothing wrong except for being new to the wikipedia world and deciding to learn on the fly rather than reading every little detail whereas C.Fred is a veteran of the Wikipedia world and should know these rules and regulations. I plead ignorance in the fact that I am new to wikipedia and do not know every rule (I am learning though) but what is your excuse C.Fred for making up the fact that I was harassing you in the form of a personal attack?Thegontlit (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock try 2

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You are now unblocked, please put in a request at WP:CHU as soon as you can. There are plenty of other usernames available other than those two though!

Request handled by: Step hen 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I hope you are willing to revise saying "we will push people to do it for us," since pushing the point is exactly what you should avoid doing. Make your case and let others decide, then drop it, either way. Mango juice^talk 06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed it to your exact words. :)