User talk:Hayesimage
December 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf(talk) 11:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Regarding the block.
[edit]
Hayesimage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not self promoting, or spamming. In fact, I'm offended to be accused as such. I was stating verifiableItalic text facts, I added web links as a sign of good faith that I was inserting truthful information. I, at no point were link spamming, self-promoting or rank pulling. What is the point of claiming to have an open-source collaborative environment if you're just going to attack anyone who attempts to take part? Hayesimage (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not self promoting? "Josh has also developed quite the resume in the dramatic arts as an actor, writer & director" without providing the necessary reliable source? Everything you've contributed appears to be about Hayes Image, which means you've been violating WP:USERNAME and WP:COI as well as possibly violating WP:PAID and WP:PROMO. The block is appropriate. Take this time to read these policies. Once the block expires, you are welcome to resume editing, so long as you avoid further violations. Yamla (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2018 (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.
Hayesimage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I provided a reliable source, and could provide more - but obviously there would be no point. But, that changes nothing. I'm not saying anything untrue, I am/was member of the (now defunct) Australian Academy of Design Alumi Association. Sounds like you have your own idea of 'truth' and everyone else is false. That's just really sad. Hayesimage (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2018 (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.
Hayesimage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I "understand" why I've been blocked, I just disagree with the logic. It's been implied that I'm doing it for vain reasons, instead of factual ones. If I said the grass is green (something we all know is true) but had the username of 'greengrass' does that mean I'm self-promoting? That's the accusation; If I created a profile named Greg Rolandson and added the exact same info (using the name Josh Hayes) onto this site would it have passed, or at least prevented a block? Even though in that scenario I'm lying about my name? Does that you correct? or, just gullible? Self-promotion implies that there is something to gain, what do I have to gain by adding in 15yr old information to page listing? I've been receiving lots of emails asking for donations this past month to wikipedia, I'm thankful that I ignored them, because if this is how new contributors are welcomed, disgusting... Hayesimage (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline due to multiple open requests. -- Scott (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2018 (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.
Your contributions would most certainly have been reverted in that case. "Josh has also developed quite the resume in the dramatic arts as an actor, writer & director" has no place here regardless of who adds it, particularly when cited with a source that fails WP:RS. Throw in WP:COI as well and you start to see the problems that lead to your block. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hayesimage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your contributions would most certainly have been reverted in that case. "Josh has also developed quite the resume in the dramatic arts as an actor, writer & director" has no place here regardless of who adds it, particularly when cited with a source that fails WP:RS. Throw in WP:COI as well and you start to see the problems that lead to your block."
There is yet to be a reference to the first half of my contribution, yet I'm being dragged over the coals for the second half. Why did you delete the whole thing if your beef is with the last bit? I'm happy to split the difference, leave the last bit off...it's fine.
Hayesimage (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Scott (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2018 (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.
- Regarding your first edit, you are correct that it isn't unambiguously promotional. I suspect that's why you were only blocked temporarily, rather than indefinitely as is common for accounts that appear to be here solely for promotional reasons. I do agree with the decision to revert it, as it seems to be a classic case of WP:ALMAMATER. But that's just my opinion.
- By the way, creating multiple unblock requests that don't seriously address the reason for the block is a good way to get your block extended and/or lose talk page access. You are welcome to comment here without using the unblock template. -- Scott (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Scott, I haven't 'seriously addressed' the block because to be honest with you; I don't take the block seriously (which, no doubt you've guessed). I think that it was performed by some punk kid sitting in their bedroom in their underwear because they're on a power trip for being named 'wikipedia moderator'. The fact that the original blocker hasn't come back to justify themselves is very telling, I feel. But, for the sake of argument, if we agree to disagree for a minute that I'm blatantly self-promoting, are you suggesting that my words or experience lacks truth? You already passive-aggressively called me 'unimportant' through the alma:mater link you posted. So let's be real, what would it take to get that information on the page verified & permanent? If you can't answer that, than you're unimportant.
- Your block has now expired. I urge you to read WP:NPA because any more like this and you'll end up blocked again. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- To add that information to the page you would need to:
- Explain its pertinence to the article subject. How does the information improve a reader's understanding of the school? Every school has at least some students go on to career success; why give this much weight to an alum who doesn't meet the notability guidelines for their own article?
- Provide reliable, secondary sources for the information. The two award sites you linked aren't sufficient by themselves, and IMDB is not an appropriate source.
- Since you have a conflict of interest, make an edit request on the article talk page asking someone else to add the information.
- -- Scott (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Scott, this is the information I was after from the get go. I have been talking to other alums in my down time, and we're all in agreement that more names belong on that list (not just mine, but Amy Wells & Jacqueline Hine also were a general consensus). It's in my opinion that the alums list on wikipedia is incomplete, the campus co-ordinator (whom may/or may not have been the author of the original article, I honesty don't know) is recently deceased, so there's a possibly they had more to say. My only issue with the links I provided, which were links from the official award sites; how would any secondary site prove more pertinent? Merry Christmas Scott.
Yalma. Personal attacks? I haven't given anymore than I've received. Who moderates this page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Feel better Yalma? I'm glad.