User talk:Aviation geek

Your submission at Articles for creation

Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

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!

RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance 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/Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of the duration of the above AfD for sockpuppetry, including the use of multiple accounts to attempt to votestack at AfD. The use of multiple accounts by a single individual on Wikipedia is only permitted in certain, strictly defined situations, and your use of multiple accounts has taken place outside of them. In the future, please edit using only a single account. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Just eat it! Brad Shen (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aviation geek. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Angel MedFlight makes legal threat against Wikipedia editor. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:54, 20 September 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).

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

Request reason:

== Recent Sockpuppet Investigation Result == I think I need to be open and honest with you here. I feel that our company is notable (Angel MedFlight), and therefore tried to upload an article on here fully knowing articles on our company, by members of the company, had been put up and deleted a number of times in the past. I saw that numerous other companies do this and was entirely unaware of proper conflict of interest procedures to do so. After the article was deleted, I felt it was an injustice, and was put in contact, by a friend with someone in the UK who said he'd upload a new version of the article for me. You guys obviously have connected him to me, but I have to say all those other users have nothing to do with me directly and therefore I assume by your rules that they shouldn't have been deleted for G5? I do feel quite bad about this as I didn't realize my actions would have affected so many users. I do hope that in the future I can disclose my COI and work on an article about Angel MedFlight, because I think it is a notable company. However I felt that it needed saying that some of those users are probably innocent bystanders and have nothing to do with this case. Hoping this message gets to User:The Bushranger. Aviation geek (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the initial discoveries of the SPI and the history here, I think that a broader consensus than just one admin would be required to support an unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 5 October 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.

Hi there. You should probably post the above as an unblock request, so that a third-party admin can review it. Until then, in addition to WP:COI, WP:CORP should be read, as it details Wikipedia's notability standards for companies, and will help you determine if your company is in fact notbale. As for those other users, they might not be linked to you directly, but given the connections between them unfortunatly good faith isn't possible to be assumed with that group.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be honest. Did your firm employ a paid editing firm to recreate the article? I'm sorry about the confusion, the recent socks were not you. I made an assumption I should not have made, and I apologize for that. That being said all of those accounts are related, the only explanation I can come up with is that your firm hired a firm to write an article. I then saw it was extremely congruent with your edits, and made hte assumpition all of the accounts that were the same as TimeQueen were you. Please get back to me asap. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for coming to that conclusion. Does this mean that my ban will now be reduced? To answer your question, not that I know of. He works in marketing, but he is an individual rather than a large PR editing firm. He said he has a main account, but for work like this, he uses a method to get articles live that have been treated with suspicion in the past. This was a favor -- it wasn't technically paid for, but I'm not sure about his other dealings. I've dropped him an email to come on here and clarify what he's done. I hope that my cooperation will lead to my ban being reduced. Aviation geek (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A full explanation would help remedy the situation. I'm still not entirely sure waht's going on but a good portion of it is out of bounds (by the company). NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an explanation was given on the talk page of User:TimeQueen32 prior. How can we move forward? Aviation geek (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:NativeForeigner Have you had a chance to read User:TimeQueen32 explanation yet? Aviation geek (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just saw your post. That being said I read it and I will be willing to unblock you. Are you aware of the policy of WP:SOCK that states you cannot use multiple accounts for the purpose evading scrutiny, or other underhanded purposes. Are you aware that WP:MEAT is treated essentially the same. Please make yourself familiar with WP:COI guidelines and if you have a COI try to stick to editing the talk page of these pages, as it is considered to be the best practice. Also Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising or promotion. If you understand this feel free to file another unblock request. Note to other patrolling admins: I will be unavailable for the next few days, if you see a response and want to process it use your own best judgment. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have followed the suggestions laid out by User:Native Foreneigner and User:The Bushmaster and present this unblock request with a much better understanding and awareness of the things I was blocked for. Aviation geek (talk) 5:29 am, 27 November 2013, Wednesday (11 days ago) (UTC+11)

Accept reason:

Aviation geek has shown that they understand the reason they were blocked and have given a good faith guarantee that they will comply with applicable policies and guidelines. So with the agreement of blocking and reviewing admins I am unblocking you so that you can contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need a firm response to User:NativeForeigner's last questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Coffee I fully understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising or promotion and have read everything he linked too. Aviation geek (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you aware of what meatpuppetry is, and why it is not allowed here? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I am now aware of meatpuppetry and how it is not allowed. I have also fully read up on WP:COI. Aviation geek (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Coffee and NativeForeigner are we right to unblock now? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I would say yes at this point. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        As would I. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for resuming sockpuppetry for the purpose of evading scrutiny in recreating deleted articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 5 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been wrongly blocked and have not done any of sockpuppetry or recreating of any deleted articles. I understand how I might be assumed associated, due to past issues, but I assure everyone that I am not involved in whatever caused this blockAviation geek (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the entire discussion, behavioural editing, and plain old "obvious", this block appears to be valid. Aviation geek: it's important for you to know that you will very likely be welcomed back to Wikipedia - if and only if you follow ALL of the rules that you agreed to on this private website. As tempting as it is to try and sneak in a few edits either anonymously or with another account (it is addictive after all), doing so is a flat-out violation. We also expect honesty, something which has been lacking since I started monitoring this talkpage ages ago. I'm going to go out on a limb here and extend WP:OFFER: for the next 3 months, you need to stay away from the English Wikipedia. Don't try and fix a period, comma, create another account, or indeed even login. I personally recommend going in and helping out at the Simple Wikipedia or similar project, but I cannot force that. In 3 months, come back: make a fully WP:GAB-compliant unblock request; one that includes the most important aspect: honesty. In that unblock, show us your proposed way forward. Do not be surprised it there are temporary restrictions placed on your editing as condition of unblock. The goal here is this: you have positive things to add, but you've rapidly become a timesink to the project. You need to review your philosophy and desire to be a respected editor while on a very very short break (it's usually 6 months, by the way). If you even correct a single period, the 3 month "clock" will be reset, and extended to 6 months. This isn't rocket science, and it's not punishment - it's a positive way forward for you, and will allow you to review the community norms and rules that you're expected to partake in the panda ₯’ 10:11, 27 April 2014 (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.

I have a question: you haven't made a single edit to Wikipedia since your unblock in December. How did you find out that you were blocked by User:The Bushranger? D P 09:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use Wikipedia all the time as most do and I do still check my user from time to time when I can. I had high intentions of getting more into page creation and editing, but have not as it just has not yet seemed to move to the front of my ever shrinking personal time. Obviously I don't want to be blocked, and now that I noticed I'm still seen as tied into some large sockpuppet ring I want to cleared out of that. I think I was shown as not associated in that in the investigation, yet for some reason never actually separated on the investigations page. Aviation geek (talk)

My question is, why should someone be unblocked a second time after Having a block for sockpupptry raised from him, within about a year he was blocked again for the Same Thing. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 23:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I was wrongly blocked this time. In fact in the sockpuppet investigation it clearly states (now in archive) that I am clearly not tied to any of the others. User:The Bushranger has blocked me as part of some additional sock puppets that I was shown not to be a part of.

    "These are almost certainly not Aviation geek. They are likely TimeQueen32/that paid editing group." NativeForeigner Talk 05:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)"

This request has been standing. User:The Bushranger can you please look into this further, you will see that I have nothing to do with what you banned me for. Thank you in advance. Aviation geek (talk)

And that comment you quote came from six days after you were blocked for blatantly socking. I'm afraid that in this case, "I was not socking" is not going to cut it, since the sockpuppet account was editing exactly as you were. (Please also note that blocking and banning are two different things). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]