Cg123987ku

February 2019

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. [1] MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Alexf^(talk) 14:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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).

Cg123987ku (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I was given a block for adding spam link. To my knowledge, the information I added to the page was fairly relevant (however, I can understand that because there was only a sentence added - it does perhaps raise a few red flags through the admin's eyes). I have read over the guidelines and truly believe that I was adding value and had zero intention of devaluing the page in question. I would be more than happy to improve my submission so it meets the standard I believe you are after. I apologise for the inconvenience as it is not my intention to spam irrelevant links. Thanks. Cannock Gates (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please read about conflict of interest and paid editing, which will explain why it is problematic for you to add links to your own website. Furthermore, you will need to suggest a new username as the username policy does not permit business names as a username. If you want to edit about subjects outside of your conflict of interest, please state what those might be, as it is unlikely you will be allowed to edit in the area of your conflict of interest directly. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2019 (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.

Please use {{Unblock-un|user=new username|reason=your reason here}} to make your request(leaving out the "nowiki" tags). 331dot (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

Cg123987ku (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

cg123987ku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I was advised by admin (331dot) to submit a username request as mine is not appropriate. This is a username I feel is more appropriate.

Decline reason:

"If you want to edit about subjects outside of your conflict of interest, please state what those might be". I can't see where you did that. Yamla (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to make appropriate edits to pages that are about my local area and manufacturing. Thanks. Cg123987ku (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

Cg123987ku (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I would like to make another unblock request. I have been reading up on some of the guidelines and realize that I was wrong to use Wikipedia as before. I am genuinely interested in making positive changes. Please can you advise on how to continue. I would also like to change my username/or to create a new account with a neutral username. I created this account and acting without knowing proper etiquette. Thank you

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as another unblock request is below. Please only have one unblock request submitted at a time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is fair enough, I apologiseCg123987ku (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2019 (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.

Please respond to Yamla's comment above, and propose a new username(or do you want to use what you suggested before). 331dot (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to use the username I suggested before. If possible. Cannock Gates (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have renamed your account from Cannock Gates, and someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. How long would another review take? I would like to make some edits where needed next week. Cg123987ku (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As administrators are volunteers just like most other editors, there isn't a set timeframe, but your request is visible to all interested admins, and one will review it in due course. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yeah that is understandable. I do have question however, I have had other people ask my if the IP address is blocked... If so, according to the 'Blocking IP addresses' article it states that 'IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked' - as this was nearly a month ago - I think ours may be blocked. Is that a little harsh for a first-time offence? I hate to be a pain in asking but I am just a little confused. But thanks for the help anyway. Cg123987ku (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The IP is probably what is called autoblocked, meaning it is blocked because this account is blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahh I see. It has changed again now, before it was impossible for one of the others to create another account cause of the block - now they can create an account but cannot edit or use the talk page of admins. Progress all the same haha Cg123987ku (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it not possible for you (331dot (talk · contribs)) to undertake another unblock request. I think the activity on my talk page is evidence that i do care. I completely understand the initial block and accept that the edits made were no appropriate - however that was purely out of interest to see how the editing system worked. I am confused to why I am being left alone - I understand that all admins are volunteers but I can see that other users are getting a response to their requests and i am not. I would like to know what it is I can do to proceed in starting fresh. I feel I have been respectful in my requests and do not know what more I could do - if there is something - please do inform me. I am finding this radio silence worrying. Thanks again. Cg123987ku (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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).

Cg123987ku (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I am making another request for this account to either be unblocked because I have been informed that another new user on this IP was blocked from editing due to the indiscretions made by the user of this account. I would, if possible, like to either have a clean slate on this account or the ability to make edits from other accounts in the facility. I can see why the admins felt it necessary to block this account for a period of time - however I do feel that the indefinite nature of the block is a little harsh. I implore you to reconsider. Thank you. (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the concerns raised below, I am not comfortable unblocking this account without a clear commitment to avoid any edits relating to Cannock Gates, their products, their competitors or any other aspect of their business. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:48, 15 May 2019 (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.

What is your relationship to Hrss911 (talk · contribs)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That is an account made by someone else on the team to experiment with Wikipedia and the backend (I suggested it). I didn't realise that this might be an issue, it is not an attempt at sockpuppeting (learned a new word today) or anything weird. I am just eager to move past the big error in judgement and start contributing on wiki. I completely get why the edit i made was inappropriate and I should have thought more about the impact of the change before testing it. I could understand and accept a temporary band for a few days or a week or two but the indefinite one seems a little harsh for a stupid first-time error on my part when experimenting with it. I feel I have done everything to make up for it also. I am just a little confused, not by yourself or any particular admin - but by the ban length. Cg123987ku (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Could I please have a update or resolution to this issue... the last few comments i have made have gone ignored entirely. I feel like I have done this all the right way... Any update would be fine. But this non-response on my talk page is being very frustrating. Cg123987ku (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your request will be reviewed in due course, please be patient. Like most editors, administrators are volunteers who do what they can when they can. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I can appreciate that editors and admins are all volunteers so I am okay with waiting. I must ask however two things. Firstly, will my request actually be addressed at all or will it be just left there in limbo with me sitting here each day waiting for a response? Not to sound impatient but I have a feeling that I am not being taken all that seriously. Secondly, as you say this all works via volunteers and this cannot be rushed - how long before I should consider making another request or messaging someone? As it has been 2 months now and I am genuinely surprised that this is taking this long to resolve. Did I make a mistake and add a link by playing around - yes I did. But I feel that after 2 months of requests, liaising with admins and reading all sorts of guidelines for wiki and improving my knowledge - I am wasting my time. I have no intention of creating another account from another IP to make edits from as I fully respect the decisions and processes of the admins. There are multiple people in this office who would like to make edits - I was just the first - but this IP block is an out of proportion response to a error in judgement. I am not criticizing any of the admins or 331dot (talk · contribs), I am just trying to voice my thoughts to the person who seems to provide consistent responses to my comments. I hope this all gets resolved soon as I am over this saga. I hope I am not just talking to myself and wasting my time by saying all this.Cg123987ku (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

For fairness to you, I can't formally review another of your requests; that is general practice here. But you seem to suggest to me that others are waiting in the wings for your block(and the associated autoblock) to be lifted so that they can make the edits that you were blocked for. Please clarify this. You do state that you will edit about your local area and manufacturing, but you would need to specifically affirm that you will not edit about your business or anything related to your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Ahh see I was not aware of the fact that you were unable to come back to re-review a request. Thank you for the clarification. Well the idea of becoming more involved within Wikipedia was not just mine alone, a number of friends and colleagues showed interest (and one created an account to find it was blocked also). Whether or not they will want to do this moving forward is something I cannot confirm - this process has been fairly long-winded and certain elements have been frustrating to deal with (although I wouldn't suggest that you 331dot (talk · contribs) are among these). I am communicating from an area which has a lot of people so the autoblock on the IP was something that annoyed people by concept - not sure if anyone actually was affected. I affirm that I am happy to edit about my local area and manufacturing (and potentially other areas in the future). I will not do anything that I am aware of as a conflict of interest and will only make changes I deem to be relevant to the page - adding value. Cg123987ku (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

As I have stated on numerous, the initial edit was a mistake made by just playing around and trying to understand how the editing platform works. It was an honest mistake that was made (admittedly with little thought). I have followed all instruction and provided all information requested. Over the last 82 days, I have been nothing but patient and understanding, but over this time this block has prevented and massively discouraged many different people from joining the Wikipedia community. I have done everything in my power to show that I am 1000% sorry and am 100000% interested in becoming a regular contributor. However, at this point it seems I am being stringed along for a quick, short indiscretion which seems a total over the top reaction considering that I have not been rude or abusive or threatening. I am quickly losing faith, belief and interest in this community. I sincerely hope that my next unblock request be reviewed with a different outcome.Cg123987ku (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What other clear commitment can I provide to show this? Cg123987ku (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

As has been said, a clear statement as Yunshui suggests would help a lot. You kind of allude to it but don't specifically state it. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)