User talk:DylRicho

Bla bla bla...

Replaceable fair use File:BlackBerry Porsche Design P9981.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:BlackBerry Porsche Design P9981.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to HTC One S. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Biker Biker (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DylRicho. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocked[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the 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}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:07, 15 July 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).

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

Request reason:

How is providing links to external sources for a phone such as its specifications and a review, a violation of your so-called inappropriate links? It's adding reliable sources to the article... Dylan (talk) 1:09 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

User:Biker Biker below explains it rather well. "Linking to specifications" is not the problem. The problem is using Wikipedia to drive traffic to what is, to judge from your username, your own website. As the block template states, "Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity." - Vianello (Talk) 18:47, 16 July 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.

How is it a violation? Read WP:ELNO. Also read WP:COI. Pushing in appropriate links is wrong, pushing inappropriate links on your own website is doubly wrong. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An inappropriate link? I see many other people do that. What's so bad about linking to specs of the device and a review? Dylan (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

So you're saying my sources are unreliable? I own the damn phone. I've carried out tests and I have screenshots to prove it. Dylan(talk) 21:42, 16 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I deem it unnecessary to block me from editing articles. I have been a member of Wikipedia since 2007 and if you take a look at my edit history, how many times do you see me "spamming"? I was simply adding in links to the phone because I own it. I have carried out a series of tests and I thought adding them to the article would build up on the informative material. The specifications that I linked to on my site are just that. There was never any intention of spamming or doing harm to Wikipedia or its articles with my account. I think I also included a reference to a review of the One S? Well I take blame for that as the review is an upcoming piece of work and is actually not yet up on my site.

Decline reason:

Your intent is irrelevant. Since this is a username block, it will not be lifted until, at least, you've used {{unblock-un}} to propose a new username. And you might want to consider the questions below. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 18 July 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.

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2012 (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.

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

Requested username:

DylRicho15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

My username is DylRicho across all of my accounts that I am associated with. Thus, I would like to keep it as that with the addition of two numbers that are familiar with me. I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it lists businesses in its articles.

Decline reason:

I have the impression you're not quite getting what we're saying yet. Your username is a problem because it contains (and represents) a business. No matter how many other sites this is ok on, adding two numbers won't fix that username up enough to make it usable on Wikipedia. In addition, your assertion that Wikipedia "lists businesses in its articles" sounds like you continue to believe that you were in the right to be linking from Wikipedia to your personal website. We need you to understand that it's not your right to add links to your site to Wikipedia, no matter how important, neutral, or relevant you feel they are; multiple users have now told you that no matter how fine those links seem to you, to everyone else they appear to be promotionalism, which we don't permit. If you intend to appeal this block again, please select a username that doesn't contain your business/site name, and provide some explanation of your understanding of our sourcing and linking policies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2012 (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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

How is that? Also, by "lists businesses in its articles," I meant that they have their own articles and are listed as sources, which is what I was trying to provide. An example here is in the Samsung Galaxy S III article, I notice another blogging company, TechnoBuffalo, who do exactly what we do. They are listed in the references but not in the external links. If I add content from my site/blog to articles, would I be liable to do the same? I did that with the benchmarking results in a valid manor. Another example, is that if there is a new device release and there is either no Wikipedia article for it yet or it has limited information, would I be liable to add information (or add the article like I did with the BlackBerry Porsche Design) and then use my site/blog as the reference, considering it would be coming from my blog. I am a reliable source of information as I work for Telefonica O2 UK as guru.

Decline reason:

I concur with Biker Biker; you simply do not seem to understand that you may not promote your blog on Wikipedia. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 08:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user simply doesn't get the concept of conflict of interest and so should remain blocked. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please tell me in a non-confusing way and I would understand. Dylan (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply: you may not write anything about you or an organization you represent, and may not link to anything you represent. You are personally not a reliable source. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that just creates more confusion. If that is true, why is TechnoBuffalo in the references of the Samsung Galaxy S III article? We do exactly the same thing. Dylan (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. Plus, who says that TechnoBuffalo added that themself? You're doing yourself no favours here ... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to violate COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. But still, shouldn't someone be checking the articles for things like that? You seemed to be pretty quick with mine. Also, I honestly didn't realize I was violating anything. Looking up on my edit history and contributions, you'll notice that I've hardly done this sort of thing. I was just trying to add information and add a reference to my website because that's where the information came from. Since when was citing sources a bad idea for Wikipedia? Do you just simply not allow sources from blogs? If so, I understand that now and won't do that in the future. Dylan (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "someone" in question is literally ANYONE - that's how a wiki works. You yourself could go in and fix the issue if you find it, if you were so inclined. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I could but at the time I was unaware that blog citing was not prohibited. Dylan (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone even read what I put? I did not know it was not allowed and I was unaware that I was violating any rules. Dylan (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"LOOFAHE" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LOOFAHE. Since you had some involvement with the LOOFAHE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"LOFAHE" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LOFAHE. Since you had some involvement with the LOFAHE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]