User talk:Xoxotrackandfield

Welcome

Hello, Xoxotrackandfield, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Newwave Mktg

http://.centerforhumanreprod.com

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

--Hu12 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Me

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

chewy2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I am a new editor of wikipedia and was not aware that I was not able to use a company's name in my username. I used to be a intern for NWM but now I am just a student. My username is just a easy way for me to remember - and my email address as well because it links to my gmail account. I am not spamming wikipedia, I wanted to contribute to articles that I have learned about in my undergraduate research projects, which include human reproduction, specifically female infertility.

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Note that User:Chewy2014 is taken however; please choose another name. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued WP:CITESPAMMING

It has become apparent that your account is only being used for spamming inappropriate external links or self-promotion, so it has been blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will also have their websites blacklisted.

--Hu12 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK ME

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).

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

Request reason:

I am studying human reproduction and I have been very interested in the female infertility because it strikes very close to home for me. I want to inform people about new studies that have been done to help women with female infertility. Once again, I have said in my first request to unblock me after I had been blocked by user Hu12 when I noted that I am not a promotional company. I am simply a student trying to share research and knowledge.

Decline reason:

I see only link additions, sometimes masqueraded by copyright-violating text taken from the very source you're trying hard to promote. To put it bluntly, you're not here to make an encyclopedia better. Max Semenik (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2012 (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 have been advised more than once that the link/website you keep linking to is not appropriate as either a source or as an external link from an article. You are blocked because you continue to ignore that direction. If unblocked, what other edits do you intend to do? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 30 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

If I am not mistaken, the first time I was blocked, it was because the user Hu12 claimed that my username was a sort of soliciting, so I went and fixed that. There was absolutely no mentioning of copyright info. Had I known it was because of infringements on copyright issues regarding sources and the website I was using, I would have looked further into how to incorporate the information into wikipedia without violating the handbook. This is only my second week working with editing so I am not sure exactly how everything works, I am still learning. Furthermore, I do want to look into editing other pages that include topics I am very interested in such as topics related to track & field, IES Abroad, and working with the community portal because there are many topics in there I am very familiar with.

Decline reason:

See reason below Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2012 (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.

Your first block was for a combination username and WP:SPAM. You addressed one part, then went right back to the improper links and spamming. When you were unblocked to changed your username, it was with the understanding that you would not add those links ever again. Of course, you're made aware of WP:COPYRIGHT every single time you edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not aware of that second part until now. I assumed that since Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia where all users are free to edit, I was under the impression that as long as the sources are credible and sited correctly, there shouldn't be a problem.

Decline reason:

We don't tolerate editors who are here for the sole purpose of promoting their employer or client. You will not be unblocked so long as that's why you're here. Continued addition of links to the center for human reproduction from any accounts will simply result in its being blacklisted from Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2012 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Once again, for the 3rd or 4th time, the center for human reproduction is NOT a client of mine...I am just a student who has done a lot of research in this topic because I have a relative who suffers from female infertility. Also, the center for human reproduction is already a source on other pages and those have not been taken down. I am sorry for being difficult but I would like to understand how exactly this works because, clearly, I'm confused.

Decline reason:

How it works is this: you will not be unblocked if your intent is to continue adding that link to articles, period. You continue to state that you wish to do so, but it's a condition of your possible unblock that you don't (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:24, 1 November 2012 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I understand that, I have not said in any of my prior responses that I was going to continue to post if that's clearly a problem for wikipedia, but I'm treating this as a learning experience so I can not violate any more conduct rules, but my question is STILL not answered. I want to know how some pages can have the center for human reproduction sited on the page and be okay whereas mine were not.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: no response to BWilkins below. He didn't require much from you, but you haven't copmlied even with this. Max Semenik (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2012 (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.

Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is typically related to articles, it works for WP:EL as well ... indeed, I've already begun putting together a task to find out where it's being used right now and verify if it should be there. In short though, the existence of something never justifies its existence somewhere else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying you're just a student, how can you explain your first username, Julienewwavemktg, in conjunction with edits adding links only to one site? Do you with all the reasearch you caim to have done not have any other source of information? Max Semenik (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read why I changed my first username, that would answer your question. I am a full time student, which means that I cannot hold a full time job and be employed by any company because it violates my school handbook. With that said, I used to intern for that company. I can recopy the entire reason as to why I changed my username if you would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxotrackandfield (talk • contribs)

Note: you already have an open unblock; simply reply to questions (like I changed to above) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, simply put, wikipedia never let me continue putting in additional sources. I just so happened to have done a lot of research on center for human reproduction prior because of personal situations so I wanted to post on what I have done research on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxotrackandfield (talk • contribs)

Under wikipedia policy this would almost certain not be allowed; see original research. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start over here

Julie, believe it or not, the admins who are commenting on this page are working hard to get you unblocked and not to keep you blocked. For example, my personal philosophy of this project starts with "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". By now you will have read the Guide to Appealing Blocks a few times - it's pretty clear there as to what Admins must see in an unblock request in order to unblock and what will lead to an automatic decline. You'll see a few things such as confirming that the behaviours that led to the block (such as adding external links to a specific site) must not recur - you'll note, that your arguments that "since they appear elsewhere they must be ok" kinda ran contrary to requirement.

So, how do we move forward and actually get you unblocked in order to contribute? By this point, you probably have a dozen more people watching this page and your contributions - that's actually normal (last time I checked there were over 100 editors watching my talkpage), and can actually be helpful for you. It can however also be daunting that people are watching your contributions - but understand, people are here to help, not hinder.

I guess the final answer that Admins are looking for - and is going to be monitored to a degree is this:

you're not representing any organization/company
you will not promote any organization/company, especially through the use of external links
you will not be including links to one specific website (or mirrors of it)

If this is the case, let us know right here (please don't post another unblock request), and we should be able to move forward. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- i do wholeheartedly agree that we have no wish to discourage potential new editors, and I hope that you will successfully weather the storm here. But please do take my comment about original research on board. If you have problems in the future I, and I am sure Bwilkins will be happy to advise on your intended edits. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally thought that every time I wanted to respond, I had to use the "unblock". Sorry, that was my misunderstanding. So my question becomes, I would hope that I have made it clear that I am not working for any sort of organization or company. What exactly do you mean through the use of external links...I thought that all credible information that can be traced back to a source was valid...is that an external link? What is exactly appropriate?

For example, the one you have been linking to again and again: not acceptable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if I want to put something about Matanza-Riachuelo and it is linking to a website that talks about it, and I cite it the same way as I did before, is that considered acceptable? If so, what exactly is the difference?

Apparently you do not understand the reason for your block, which as per WP:GAB is core to becoming unblocked. The Centre's website that you continually link to may not be used, and you have been advised why more than once. There has yet to be any statement by you that you understand and will not do so - instead, you're being intentionally vague. As such, it appears that you're simply wasting the time of people who are going out of your way to accept you into the community of Wikipedia - if you're going to do that, your indefinite block will be just that: indefinite. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xoxotrackandfield, are you going to answer to the above? Max Semenik (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]