User talk:UnderAdvice

Well, one of the trickier aspects of describing pioneering companies in IT is the "BG" effect. Today's young shavers tend to regard anything that is not Googleable in under a second, as pre-history. Indeed there is a hinterland emerging in the early years of the internet pre-google where very little hard online reference exists; and it's getting tougher getting references from retired colleagues like the late Guy Kewney.

I was moved to contribute on the USP page as this is/was a genuine pioneer that existed long before Google became the assumed fount of all knowledge, and number of firsts - like the original banner ad server (circa 1992) - are simply not listed anywhere on current search engines.

This is my first substantive effort with Wikipedia, so please bear with me as I fumble along.

UnderAdvice (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Meetings Review

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 Meetings Review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of USP Networks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article USP Networks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USP Networks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Todd

Hey Todd. Now others that were poised to contribute are nervous to get involved with this listing as a direct result of being unnerved by your recent un-wiki-like outbursts over the blackout and trigger-happy approach to the task, anticipating another pre-emptive deletion. However, USP has demonstrably been a pioneer of several aspects of the commercial internet in the UK and Europe - and since this goes back a way to pre-1993, it will take a little time to marshal all the contributors and sources. We are talking life before Google here. Please be a little more patient. UnderAdvice (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

As far as the block is concerned, I am now unable to contribute to the discussion of the deletion - or indeed the article itself - having alerted other potential contributors. I registered a wiki name a long while ago before expecting to get embroiled in this sort of controversy - or really bothering to pay attention to the fact that most everyone else on Wikipedia does their best to be anonymous - including yourself! At the time the article was re-listed, you had chosen to retreat to your fortress of solitude "sine die" which left no option for further discussion or debate, so I think it is somewhat unfair that you have blocked the IP. UnderAdvice (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see several different usernames editing the same or related articles from the same IP. This is in breach of this or this policy. What is the relationship between User:Wpoel, User:UnderAdvice, User:USPnetworks, and User:Carl101lee? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:51, 23 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is network of some 30 users, and what carl101lee gets up to is his own business. Although he overheard me discussing this matter and volunteered his own recent experience, I am not his keeper. Let's get back to the facts - I reposted the deleted article because the deleting admin has disappeared in a huff, and indicated he might never return. Which somewhat stunts the prospect of a discussion. But then after a couple of days, he missed the power of being a wiki denizen, and reappeared to comprehensively zap me!! I am perfectly happy to have original user removed, I would delete it myself if I knew how. Please reconsider in these irregular circumstances. UnderAdvice (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK, I get that you guys stick together, but here are "The facts" - I reposted the deleted article because the deleting admin has disappeared in a huff, and indicated he might never return = which stunts the prospect of further discussion. What am I supposed to do apart from repost and wait for the debate to reopen? I am considering taking this story to the press as it seems to provide an insight into the failings of the Wiki approach where admins are able to have hissy fits and behave like kids. It also highlights the need for an altogether better thought-through staging process where contributors acting in good faith cannot be quite so roundly intimidated by the kangaroo courts of WP. We all appreciate that the WP system to date has been the subject of concern in terms of "accuracy" as well as vandalism ranging from hilarious to sinister, and that you need to guard against abuse - but if the future of WP is the subjective suppression of verifiable factual information and ignorance (in the absolute sense of that word); then like Todd, I may decide to go off in huff, never to return. Your loss. 8-P UnderAdvice (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't appear to be a request for unblock. Also, are you saying the admin who blocked you has "gone off in a huff"? Because as far as I can tell he's still actively editing. Closedmouth (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2012 (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.

Forget the unblock, I don't think I am ever likely to be reconciled with the way a US ("we invented the internet") dominated Wikipedia interacts with British ("we invented the www") company history. But I was so astonished when I saw Toddst1 comments when I went to try and discuss the original deletion, that I took the opportunity to copy the relevant pages. Which includes:

This user [Toddst1] is boycotting Wikipedia editing for the time being over the

unjust and one-sided international blackout on SOPA.
Please consider signing this protest against the blackout.

I'm taking this matter somewhere where we can get proper discussion going. Judging from other stats and comments ("You seem to attract the kooks") on his page, Todd does not shrink from contention... UnderAdvice (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]