User talk:Blueladder

February 2020[edit]

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. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting 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. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by spamblocked account User:Compaction and Sizing Experts. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 13 February 2020 (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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

I will not post spam links, advertising material or biased content and will post along Wikipedia's guidelines to the best of my abilities. I plan to edit articles, such as Allis-Chalmers, potash, salt, mining machinery.

Decline reason:

No, you have a clear conflict of interest in that subject area. Additionally, you have not addressed your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Yamla (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

I will not post spam links, advertising material or biased content and will post along Wikipedia's guidelines to the best of my abilities. I plan to edit articles, such as ship building, clams, oysters, and cartography. As stated in my block appeals regarding WP:SOCK, I created a second new username because I created the wrong name the first time and wanted to change it, but could not do so without creating another account. I created the second account before I was blocked. I will not use two accounts--just the one. I did not originally understand why I was blocked for this reason and tried to make an appeal, in which it was perceived that I was trying to WP:EVADE. However, this was not the case. I was new to Wikipedia and did not understand what was happening. Now, things are clearer to me, after I have looked in the proper way to use Wikipedia. I plan to use it now according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Accept reason:

I am unblocking your account on the basis of your assurances about your future editing intentions. (See below for more details.) JBW (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ludman Industries LLC (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the new account was created one minute before the old one was blocked, so it can't have been created in order to evade the block, and the explanation given for creating it seems perfectly likely. (Incidentally, it is in fact possible to change the name of an account, rather than creating a new account, but new editors don't necessarily know that.) I would be willing to support unblocking if you were to show that you understand the conflict of interest guideline and will abide by it. (Note: "show" that you understand it, not just "say" that you do. Experience over the years has shown that blocked editors who just say things like "I understand what I did wrong and won't do it again" more often than not actually don't understand, and will do it again; for that reason you should actually explain what you will do differently than before.) JBW (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly read the conflict of interest guideline and will abide by it. I will operate under an approved username, once my current username change request is approved, that does not conflict with Wikipedia guidelines, and I will edit only articles, in which I do not have a conflict of interest. If I do for some reason have a COI, I will follow Wikipedia's guidelines to ensure I am following community rules.

Ludman Industries LLC (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed your account from "Ludman Industries LLC" to "Blueladder". JBW (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, you placed this block, citing 3 reasons: (1) Promotional username, which has now been dealt with; (2) promotional edits, which the editor has now undertaken not to continue, and (3) block evasion, which, for the reasons I gave above I think was not so. That means that none of the reasons for the block now still applies, so there appears to be no basis for keeping the block. Do you know of any reason why the block shouldn't be lifted? JBW (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no problems here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]