User talk:Coffeehound

Wikipedia, to me, is the next best thing to sliced bread! :) --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

Hi. I just found your post to mean_as_custard on his talk page, here and I have to warn you that the message you posted violates Wikipedia's civility policy - I would strongly advise you to go back to the page and reword what you posted, or retract it altogether - from where I'm sitting, it looks like a personal attack, which is also a violation, and it's a blockable offence. Please be a little more polite in the manner you post, for your own benefit as much as ours. Barking Fish 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request I deleted it. This stems from my userpage being deleted without any heads up for simply posting my version of my mediawiki. I find it to be unfair that admins, when they make a mistake, get a pass and the common user pays. It's a moot issue now. --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, admins don't get a pass :) If you ever find anything wrong with the behaviour of administrative staff at this wiki, you are welcome to post a complaint to the Administrator's Noticeboard to make other admin staff aware of the incident. If the complaint warrants further action, it may be forwarded even to the ARBCOM, only if it's serious misconduct or stuff. Barking Fish 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will. I mean to arbitrarily and capriciously remove my userpage for posting a link to the versions page of my wiki is wrong. The double edged sword is that I post my feelings as a reaction to an event created by him. Nowhere in this discussion do I see, "...well, he shouldn't have removed your link as it wasn't spam... ." See, here's a guy who can and does delete folks pages at a whim (as evidenced by his talk page and the complaints there). There is no notification (I just stumbled across it), nothing! It is not dissimilar to walking down the street and being assaulted. A person's user page is synonymous to their being in cyberspace. Yet, the onus is placed upon me for this individual's actions. Where was the civility in his deletion of my page? Or is that just a one way street? I know, file a complaint after the fact. Were my comments improper? I will grant they epitomized my feelings. The begging question which is being avoided here, though, is who gives this man authority to delete pages which have NO hint of spam? He chose to see a link and blam! Yet, the ball's in my court to file a complaint?! I mean you saw the link and yet nowhere do you even state that, "Hey, we need to address this." Yet, you are quick to jump to his defense and tell me to do this or else. So, I will continue to plod along with my site. If anyone checked my contribs they would have noted I was attempting to properly establish credit to your site here for using articles. That sure does not sound like spam! It's all moot. --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used 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 it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use 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/Organization 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, or organization. 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?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on 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, please see how to appeal a block. TN X Man 03:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing Wikipedia[edit]

Hi. Under the circumstances, I thought it best to copy this over here so we can finish our conversation. For context, this is what you wrote on my talk page:

IN RE: Copyright Talk Page
I wasn't sure where/how to continue. If I am posting in the wrong area, please move it back or whatever is proper.
So, I found the license you spoke of and added it to my wiki. It is located in the footer and the link sends you here. I believe this is kinda what you were driving at. I will need to go into each file I've imported and write a note in the Summary and that will take a bit of time, but I want to make sure I am on track. It's never been so much about the legalese and such, more of a belief that there is right and wrong in the world; the military drove that in my head! :) I want to make sure I get stuff right and acceptable to folks both on Wikipedia and at large as I hope to set an example with others who visit to my site; to show that there is a proper way to use other folks' materials. Thanx! --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) You are welcome here; it is certainly much more convenient for me. :D As I said earlier in our conversation, I can't give you legal advice, but as far as our view of the matter, you are in the right as long as you (a) continue the license and (b) attribute your source. For some reason, I can't get your website to load by following your links, by pasting it in directly or even by looking it up through Google. I even tried switching from Mozilla Firefox to Internet Explorer, but still couldn't get in. Maybe there's a temporary glitch? :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, whatever wasn't working, it's working fine now. The only problem I see is that the license you've chosen ([1]) cannot receive content that is licensed under the one we use. If you look at [2], you'll see that content from "Attribution Unported" can be incorporated in material licensed under "Attribution Share-Alike", but it doesn't work the other way around. You can only use content from Wikipedia if your work and all subsequent derivatives utilizing it are kept under free license. I'm afraid that the only Commons license that can be used for content from Wikipedia is "Attribution Share-Alike".

Of course, you're free to use CC-By for any content that does not incorporate Wikipedia articles, but you do need to specify that CC-By-SA is the license for Wikipedia based content for license compliance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I changed it to what I think you mean. Would appreciate it if you can tell me if it's right now? I see I have been banned for asking you this question so I am sorry if I have caused you any problems. I never edited anything anywhere nor tried to post; I only wanted to properly give credit which has turned out to be a nightmare. I see why most folks just copy and paste and forget about it. --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is exactly right. :) You certainly didn't cause me any problems. You were blocked for a username issue. As explained below, we have disallowed names of organizations and websites as usernames just because we do get tons of spam. I'm sorry I didn't mention anything about it myself when we first spoke. I'm afraid I can get tunnel vision; I focused on the copyright question and completely missed the fact that your username was the same as the website! In this case, all that's needed is for you to get a new username (either by changing it as per your request below or by registering a new one) and all will be right as rain. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So, my license is good! :) I submitted the request to change the name. I am in hopes, though, that our dialogue might be preserved sans whatever is improper for future folks whom might ask the same question(s). I believe folks are, by-in-large, honest and generally will try to search for an on point answer and this may be a prime example of what others wish to do?! Regardless, thanx for your patience and help with my request and have a nice day! --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

So, I don't know why I am blocked from editing. I haven't edited anything nor do I care to edit anything. I came, in good faith, asking questions on how to properly import your pages into my wiki. I asked only 1 question and what I got in return was a deleted user page. When I said it was wrong to delete my page I now have been blocked.

You know, I don't know why anyone even tries to do the right thing anymore. My experience here has been a nightmare. My only post was to ask your copyright person how to properly give credit to ya'll for letting me use your materials. In hindsight, being an honest person is not the best policy.

The reason, I believe, that I have been blocked (and I really don't care) from your site is because I chose to voice my opinion. In the United States this is a fundamental right; albeit, being attacked each and every day. Let the record reflect I have made an attempt to properly give credit where credit is due and each and all on here except your copyright person has attempted to thwart my attempts.

In closing, I would simply respectfully request a clear answer (not this nice template you provide) as to why I am being blocked. There is NO record of me editing anything; NO record of me trying to enter any materials; and ONLY an attempt to properly import your files. --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you've been having an unpleasant experience here. As you can probably imagine, we get a lot of people trying to spam Wikipedia with adverts, and sometimes people get a little trigger-happy. I agree that you don't seem to have made any spammy edits. I'm going to contact the blocking admin. Please bear with us while we sort this out. One thing I will note is that your chosen username suggests that it might be intended as a group login rather than a personal one, which I'm afraid is against the rules here. While you're waiting, I suggest you follow the advice above to use {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a username violation regardless. Q ^{T C} 08:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience hasn't been all bad; I have learned a lot from just reading ya'lls stuff. I believe in what ya'll do. Most sites are totalitarian in their actions. It is what motivated me to create my own wiki. In my career there are a thousand and one folks who want to hawk stuff and make you pay for it so I thought I should create an environment where folks could contribute and learn for free. I mean I don't care if I can edit or contribute other than the ability to ask questions when I need to (like I did with the copyright person). I don't care what name is given/assigned. This account can be deleted and I can reregister if need be. I just don't want to be stigmatized for something I didn't do. I mean when I registered I typed in a username and the machine was happy. Thank you for considering my petition and I hope to continue using your site. --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Allowing username change to Coffeehound (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking.

Request handled by: TN X Man

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

For what it's worth, I have checked your editing history, and I think the block was a mistake, but an understandable one. A new account with a user name which is the name of a web site, together with edits that add links to that web site, are exactly what a hell of a lot of spam accounts look like. Of course ideally we should do lots of checking before blocking, but unfortunately those of us who spend time on dealing with vandals, spammers, etc, have our work cut out trying to keep up with them, and so it is natural to act quickly in what looks like a classic case of a spammer's account. I can easily imagine how annoying it must be for you, but I can see the blocking admin's point of view. I hope it will be sorted out soon, so you can get on with using the account. At the moment it is a matter of waiting for the blocking admin to come online and respond to requests to look again at this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I went to Wikipedia:Changing_username page and proceeded to the Simple section. I saw the retire option, but I think it more prudent to save all the dialogue we have had here because:

a) It shows that a set of democratic ideals were followed to the T and worked; and
b) Not sure how to keep foreclosurepedia locked down as a username should someone adopt the .net, .com, etc site and hypothetically use it as a spam account handle on here.

Thanx to each and all whom have participated in this process as I know it took time out of ya'lls day which could have been used elsewhere and prevented had I researched. --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has drawn to a conclusion. I believe it is a shining example of how a volunteer organization puts a set of principles into action and they work. I was in error in assigning my original account a name wherein it identified my company. I suppose I could edit everything and have a clean page; however, I feel by keeping the dialogue it will document how the process works. It is a shining testament to following a set of protocols and hopefully help others whom might be in a similar situation. Thanks to all involved! :) --Coffeehound (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am myself a Diet Coke girl, I like your new name. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And talking of welcomes, welcome to Wikipedia! I wish you every success in your own wiki, and I hope you'll also find the time to contribute to our content here. Mmm! Coffee. Bovlb (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]