User talk:Komskystockton

Hello, Komskystockton, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions. To get the most out of Wikipedia, you may benefit from following some of the links below.

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.

Happy editing! --Snowysusan (talk) 09:34, 17 September 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

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Becca Stockton and George Komsky, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Stockton and George Komsky cannot share an account; nor can they use WIkipedia to advertise themselves[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. 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, website 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, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for 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.

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.

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:52, 14 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

My account has been mishandled

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - one request at a time, please. (Also not a reason.) Peridon (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I received a noticed from "OrangeMike" that I have been blocked from Wikipedia due to "spam." I have done no such thing. My contribution titled "Becca Stockton and George Komsky" was approved by the Wikipedia administration because it was a relivent contribution with the appropriate references. I am a huge fan of the group, and make no money from the group. Had I known contributong to wikipedia would be such an unpleasent experience, I would have never joined. So now I'm knee deep in this issue of getting my good name on Wikipedia restored, along with my freshman article. Please fix this issue.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia's administration does not 'approve' articles, and the references given did not meet the requirements of WP:RS. This account will only be unblocked for a name change, and I would recommend that there be a condition that you agree not to edit on this particular subject. This name will not be unblocked to edit otherwise because it either represents more than one person, or it falsely claims to be someone it is not. Peridon (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2013 (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.

P.S.[edit]

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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

P.S. If my username is the main issue the administrators have, I'm ok with changing it as long as my article is restored. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Technical decline - replaced by new request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put a condition like that on unblocking, and per User:Daniel at WP:REFUND I cannot see the article being restored. We can put a condition that you do not edit on that subject, and I am recommending that we do. What else would you be editing about if the unblock and name change were granted? Peridon (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request (continued)[edit]

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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

Hi Peridon - Thanks for getting back to my request. I can agree to your terms as long as I am clear on the reasoning for removal for future articles (I would like to contribute to Wikipedia on other subjects like pop-opera history, acts, etc). I see User:Lectonar has written under User: Daniel's talk page that the references to the article on "Becca Stockton and George Komsky" weren't strong enough. When the article was first approved, the references were different on that page. It looks as though the article was tampered with. They have countless public appearances, shows, write ups in notable publications, newsbroadcats etc. I can obtain a letter from a member of the act for OTRS & whatever else is needed to clear this up. It seems I am unable to talk to User: Daniel with the block in place. Help! (KS 16:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC))

Thanks user talk: Anthony.bradburyl - I gather someone found the article to not be under Wikipedia guidelines. I'm attempting to understand why an admin would allow someone to A) tamper with the article, & then B) allow it to be removed after it clearly was approved as an article following the guidelines to begin with. (KS 19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - no additional responses to show that the editor understands Wikipedia's policies as they have been presented. As such, the default understanding is that they do not get the WP:AFC process does not mean "approved", nor do they WP:OWN whatever submissions they provide. Also not convinced that COI is not an issue here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will understand if my next comment appears not to make complete sense. When an article is submitted for review prior to creation, it may well be accepted by the reviewer. This will be because it satisfies defined criteria and does not overtly violate policy. But when posted it may still be found, either by an admin acting within policy guidelines or by the community after discussion at articles for deletion, not to be suitable for retention within the encyclopedia. This can be confusing and I regret this, but such is the policy here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user talk: Anthony.bradburyl - I gather someone found the article to not be under Wikipedia guidelines. I'm attempting to understand why an admin would allow someone to A) tamper with the article, & then B) allow it to be removed after it clearly was approved as an article following the guidelines to begin with. (KS 19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean by "tampering with the article"? I assume you are aware that anything on Wikipedia can be and will be edited by anyone who happens to come along with an interest in the subject, and that there's nothing whatsoever you can do to prevent that -- you will not ever have control over that article, even if it is restored. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Komsky[edit]

Wikidepedia Administrators, I have contacted the artists manager & Ms Stockton has agreed to speak with whomever is needed to clear this up. I was also told George Komsky has just created a new profile on Wikipedia. Is that considered self promotion & thus spam? As I mentioned earlier, I can agree to your terms to change my name as long as I am clear on the reasoning for removal for future articles (I would like to contribute to Wikipedia on other subjects like pop-opera history, acts, etc). I see User:Lectonar has written under User: Daniel's talk page that the references to the article on "Becca Stockton and George Komsky" weren't strong enough. When the article was first approved, the references were different on that page. They have countless public appearances, shows, write ups in notable publications, newsbroadcats on CBS etc. I can provide a list if that will help restore the article. Thanks. (KS 04:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC))

Hi Daniel, I understand all 3 concepts above. I don't understand why a fan of an act like this one can't have a username that reflects said fandome. My interest isn't to make money off of the group - my interest is to document a notable pop opera group that isn't currently documented. (KS 05:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC))}}

User:JPGordon - I realize anyone can edit the page & accordingly cause grounds for removal. I would like to know how to keep a page intact even with the public editing it. (KS 14:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC))

Put it someplace other than Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So any article can be removed as mine was (without a 7 day discussion period so the references can be restored)... I didn't get a chance to re-post the removed references. How do popular articles like Camilla Kerslake's stay intact? I was so excited about my first article, I would just like to create one that sticks. I had valid verifiable references (like from cbs) that were removed. I'd like to sort this out so I can contribute other articles. (KS 05:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC))

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) 20:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I understand all 3 concepts above. I don't understand why a fan of an act like this one can't have a username that reflects said fandome. My interest isn't to make money off of the group - my interest is to document a notable pop opera group that isn't currently documented. (KS 05:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

The problem I see is that you claim the group is notable, but you have been unable to provide any sources unrelated to the group that can prove that notability. Wikipedia has a very strict definition of notability for musical acts, and it's not optional. You then suggest that you'll contact the band's management to "rectify" this - well, that's original research and possibly a primary source - neither of which are permitted. Finally - the username: it may full well be that you're a fan, but you agreed to the username policy which says that if the name appears to be related to an entity, it may be blocked - since your sole edits have been to promote a non-notable musical act, you can understand why it's blocked. Since you seem to intend to ONLY edit that article, if you can provide me 3 reliable sources that prove all of the requirements under WP:NMUSIC, it may be possible to unblock and rename your account. Note, however, that ANYTHING you do on Wikipedia will be subject to additional editing by anyone in the world, and you have no control over that, as you do not own the article or the material in it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]