User talk:Ustaudinger
Spamming of activequant
[edit]- Articles
- Accounts
Ustaudinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Klaqopen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
87.176.221.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
84.134.143.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
85.177.178.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. 
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been Blocked for Disruptive editing and abuse of process by making bad faith nominations of articles.
→Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TA-Lib
→Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qtstalker
→Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical analysis software
--Hu12 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding standard user warning template
[edit]Ronnotel (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
UStaudinger, in concurrence with User:Hu12, I have reduced your original indefinite block to a duration of one week. Please be careful in the future to observe WP policy regarding adding spam content, editing pages where you may have a conflict of interest and submitting bad-faith nominations for article deletion. Ronnotel (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ronnotel, I just do the same as you did with activequant and quantlib, i clean up in wikipedia and i see no conflict of interest as i can distinguish pretty well! QTStalker and TA-Lib are not notable. I pointed out several times that there are dozens of software projects exactly like activequant and quantlib listed in wikipedia, all i do is roll out the procedure, rule and opinion YOU started with activequant and quantlib. Could you please point out the difference between TA-Lib, QTStalker, ActiveQuant and Quantlib in relation to notability? Is QTStalker or TA-Lib more relevant or notable than QuantLib or ActiveQuant?
Ustaudinger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
bad faith by HU12 and Ronnotel
Decline reason:
He reduced your block from an month to a week and you claim he has bad faith? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:21, 5 January 2008 (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.
Ustaudinger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Just see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ActiveQuant , we had a long discussion about notability and so on and as i do apply the same rules for all other mentioned projects, i do not accept any justification for a block as there is no valid one. As said, applying rules, that have been applied before to two other articles, can't be wrong. Or have the other deletes of QuantLib and ActiveQuant been unjustified? TALib and QTStalker don't even have a single external reference except their own site on their wikipedia entry, whereas QuantLib and ActiveQuant had several. As pointed out in the discussion at activequant: What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centericq , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gajim , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnucash , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaStock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gstock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qtstalker , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TA-Lib , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicharts , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaho , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JGnash ? All these articles are software articles and several (i.e. MultiCharts) are worse or equal to ActiveQuant. All i want is same rules, as the opposite would be discrimination.
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 5 January 2008 (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.
Ustaudinger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't really get it, are you guys just a little bit stubborn, are you too blind to see the similarities, don't you like to have same rules for all, are you on a personal warfare (very unlikely) or what's wrong with you ? If you don't delete those other projects, i will pursue this unless activequant and quantlib are undeleted. I will not tolerate a group of bandits that flocks together as soon as one of them is accused of being unjust - undelete and unblock immediately and accept that the current block and delete of AQ and QL are wrong if you don't delete similar projects!
Decline reason:
Threats of continued disruption during and after block and abuse of tags are not valid means to achieve an unblock. Block has been reset and extended to two weeks. Continue in this maner and the next step is the door.— Hu12 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (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.
Continued disruption using anon IP
[edit]84.72.99.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block extended--Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)