User talk:LiveStormChasers

Welcome![edit]

Hello, LiveStormChasers, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:LiveStormChasers-2018, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JC7V (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:LiveStormChasers-2018[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:LiveStormChasers-2018, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JC7V (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Hello, LiveStormChasers. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but Draft:LiveStormChasers-2018 has been deleted as meeting WP:CSD#G11. "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION." These must be rewritten from scratch from "reliable, third party sources unconnected to the subject." See WP:RS.

Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising#Typical signs of blatant advertising contains information about content to avoid. For more information on content that may be perceived as promotional, click User:Dlohcierekim/promo. These are just rough guides. Pages can avoid all those pitfalls and still be glaringly obvious ad copy. Sometimes pages meeting WP:CSD#G11 give the appearance of an editor violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or WP:PAID. Please read and heed them if they apply to you. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations.

There is a very common mistake of assuming that the prohibition of promotional editing applies only to promotion for commercial gain, but that is not so.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and providing verifiable information. That generally means someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources . Template:cite has templates you can use in citing your sources. Place the template {{references}} at the bottom of the page, and references cited in the text will appear there.

If you want to try again, please use the Article Wizard or articles for creation to guide you through the creation process. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems.

You may find this tool useful: Google custom search Don't feel discouraged. My first attempts at creating articles were deleted too.

There is more information at Wikipedia:Community portal. There is help available at THE TEAHOUSE. Cheers, and happy editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:LiveStormChasers-2018 has been deleted

Hello, LiveStormChasers. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but Draft:LiveStormChasers-2018 has been deleted as meeting WP:CSD#G12. Wikipedia is the world's largest free content encyclopedia. As such, it cannot contain content copyrighted elsewhere. Such content must be completely rewritten and reformatted from scratch. Content published elsewhere copied into Wikipedia must state that it is public domain, licensed under the GFDL, or a creative commons license. That's the simple version. WP:copyright is a vastly complex issue, but if you keep to what I've written you are unlikely to run afoul.

Content copied and pasted from a subject's web page is generally unhelpful. It is generally written in a promotional tone and is not independent of the subject. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Cheers, and happy editing.

 -- Dlohcierekim  (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for encouraging me to keep working at things, learn from my mistakes, and grow from them. It was a tough time for me, but I took on a side job that ultimately grew my passion for editing and research, and now I enjoy something that I never thought I could fully grasp! So thank you again! LiveStormChasers (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth 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 that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of 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}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official info[edit]

Please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with little interset in what subjects have to say about themselves. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Thanks-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23740 was submitted on Jan 10, 2019 23:23:13. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am trying to build a page for our online web series Storm Trackers. There is a IMDb page made already that we did. It was not in my intentions to go agaisnt rules, as I simply am new and was trying to follow instrutions per videos on youtube and online. This is very new to me so I ask that you please work with me and us. But in no way were we atpemting to do spam or related. Thank you, Josh

Decline reason:

I'm afraid your intentions go against our rules. Specifically, WP:USERNAME, WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. If you'd like to write about something else, something for which you don't have a conflict of interest, you are welcome to follow the instructions above! Note that Wikipedia is different than most sites you are familiar with. Here, we are an encyclopedia rather than a business directory and in general, don't want contributions from involved people. Yamla (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2019 (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 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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

I have fully reviewed and understand the errors that led to the ban and block. I agree to fully follow all policies

Decline reason:

Reading your responses to Yamla and Philknight, I am unconvinced that you understand or agree to abide by Wikipedia's policies against spamming and COI editing. I think a name change will only be used to hide your COI editing, which, by your own statements here, seems to be your sole reason for trying to edit Wikipedia. You would be better served by setting up your own website or blog. Wikipedia is not the place for what you have in mind. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CorbieVreccan Thank you for your review however, with all due respect your "assumption" is wrong. The name change along with my account email change was nothing more to reflect the understanding that I do NOT have the intentions as your outcome in the review states. I was asked why I would want my account unbanned and I answered just some of the reasons. I am online for nearly 12-15 hours a day. I have a lot of time and as shared took on proofreading and other activities. This isn't about me wanting to hide behind a name for militia spamming. It's in fact genuine!

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe the block is not receiving a fair and honest review with the appeal and information being provided. The initial block was brought on by my own failure of understanding the purpose of Wikipedia. However, given the recent changes in my life and the time online I often find myself able to give back to the online community and have taken those steps in other areas. As explained in my recent reply to CorbieVreccan, the assumptions made are not correct. The username change is simply to help fix the issue made with the initial account creations - attempting to make things right! I kindly request another review and to please understand my intentions are not as they are being assumed! LiveStormChasers (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no errors in the prior reviews. You edited promotionally about LiveStormChasers and suggest that you represent it(using "we" above). You won't be unblocked to, in the near term, edit about LiveStormChasers, so we will need to know what edits you will make instead. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2023 (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.

331dot, I have already explained that the initial intentions were wrong, I have made what I thought were proper attempts, studying and understanding about NOT self-promoting (for a lack of words). It is your misunderstanding about the word "we" that I believe is playing a miss honest review and judgment. I have already expressed I have no intentions of self-promoting but rather taking on a new enjoyment that I have found by proofreading for literature among other things. I do believe I am entitled to and without judgment in saying this review by you is dishonest and warrants a biased opinion. I have already explained in GREAT detail that I have made every attempt to make this right from a failed understanding prior to when creating this account. As I explained I have no intentions other than just trying to help give back to areas outside of the initial errors. I believe this ban is incorrect and not receiving a fair review with the apology and proposed steps given to correct this issue after my review! LiveStormChasers (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What topics do you want to edit, if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight With the ever-increasing changes in recent science and space, I believe it is critical to be able to assist in the teaching of information so that the younger generation, in particular, can reference and grow on accurate information! Wikipedia was a core source for me, and I believe it's more important than ever to give back—not to mention it's an enjoyment of mine now!

PhilKnight adding, if you need anything else from to help with this appeal, please feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to assist as needed! LiveStormChasers (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

In reply to the last review, I have explained that the initial intentions were wrong, yes, I have made what I thought were proper attempts, studying and understanding about NOT self-promoting (for a lack of words) in trying to correct this issue. I believe there is a misunderstanding about the word "we" that I believe is playing a miss honest review and judgment. I have already expressed I have no intentions of self-promoting but rather taking on a new enjoyment that I have found by proofreading for literature among other things. I do believe I am entitled to and without judgment in saying that the prior review is dishonest and warrants a biased opinion. I have already explained in GREAT detail that I have made every attempt to make this right from a failed understanding prior to when creating this account. As I explained I have no intentions other than just trying to help give back to areas outside of the initial errors. I believe this ban is now incorrect and not receiving a fair review with the apology and proposed steps given to correct this issue after my review! I have made attempts to try to show with what little is available that there is no personal gain here. I have no desire as such. I just want to do what I enjoy now. Im not sure if this will even be possible to remove the ban or not but it's my hope that you all can see that it's not the case anymore.

Decline reason:

No response from blocked editor Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (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.

You are blocked, not banned, there is a difference, the words are not synonyms. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Yes, I understand the difference as you shared: my account is blocked. As for my choice of words, I used "ban" in this situation. However, it still does not take away from the message, proposal, and corrections attempted and trying to convey for the review! Thank you for your input! LiveStormChasers (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the ever-increasing changes in recent science and space, I believe it is critical to be able to assist in the teaching of information so that the younger generation, in particular, can reference and grow on accurate information! is a particularly vague answer. What specific topics are you interested in beyond the hundreds of thousands represented by "science and space"? More specifically, please pick a current article, and write a paragraph addition for it below this comment, including a couple of references. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear "No response from blocked editor"... I'm sorry, but I have been tied up with a family emergency among other things. I will answer and provide accordingly to your question as soon as I can! Thank you! LiveStormChasers (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]