User talk:98.115.66.194

Conflict of interest policy

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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. 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, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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.

You appear to be a sockpuppet of Dlawless (talk · contribs) --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should avoid or exercise great caution, not that you cannot comment at all upon certain edits. The link deleted was clearly a personal attack, by Wtshymanksi, when you look at the screw talk page. The link on the hinge page exceeds all expectations of a wikipedia link, and was believed to be a sufficient link by many other wikipedia editors for over a year. I believe Wtshymanski, now has a personal issue in this dispute and his editing should be undone.

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Desk, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor to provide substantiation to include an EL. Until you do this, I see no reason as to why we should include this link. I would discuss the issue on the talk page of the article and find a consensus if you want it to be included.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 (talk • contribs)

In the diff I provided above, you blanked the whole section. Now that you have removed just the external link, I am fine with it. Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad, thanks.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Pathetic, I get blocked for making an intelligent arguement, and then after conceding the loss of the arguement, I simply began enforcing the rules that were explained to me. Someone obviously did not like their own rules being enforced, and blocked me. This shows why Wiki is in decline as a reliable source, only information that is deemed "ok" by a select group of power-tripping editors is allowed. And the reason provided is false. I am not user:dlawless. Just because someone shares a particular subject of interest does not make him the same person. I never spammed Wiki one time and I am blocked, simply for making an intelligent arguement, conceding the loss, and helping the disagreeing editors enforce their policies on other pages.

Decline reason:

You made what you felt was an intelligent argument, and yet the consensus still did not agree that Wikipedia would be better with a link to your web site. You then responded by disrupting other articles to make a point. And since I find it hard to believe that anyone but the site owners cares about that web site, you are certainly either one of the two people who runs Hinge Dummy. If you aren't the one who was using User:Dlawless, then you're the other one, but the username could be either of you. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote your web site. If you were interested in helping to improve Wikipedia's articles on this subject, I have no doubt that you have the knowledge and enthusiasm to be very helpful. However, as far as I can see, you aren't interested in making the encyclopedia better, but only in promoting your web site. That's a shame, but not a reason to unblock you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (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.

Wikipedia is better including my link and that was my argument. So, I was an advocate for improving Wikipedia. And please do not pretend like my argument was not intelligent. My views were well thought out and articulated by Wikipedia's guidelines. What more can you ask? I accepted the consensus and then began to enforce the consensus' policy. So, if by "disrupting" you mean enforcing your own policies, then yes I did disrupt, haha. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. All of your policies are simply guidelines, and therefore you enforce them quite arbitrarily, with a thin veil of neutrality over the bias. Karma will catch up with Wiki, no worries.

---