User talk:Joe Grist

Welcome

Hello, Joe Grist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Gurt Posh (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A Future Not Far

The article A Future Not Far has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books), can't find any mention of it online.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Future Not Far for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Future Not Far 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/A Future Not Far 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. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sharecom

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 Sharecom 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 web content, 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 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. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sharecom

A tag has been placed on Sharecom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

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 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. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I Suggest

You may wish to read WP:Your first article and WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. Any "live" article must meet very specific standards, whereas a draft might give you a little more time to complete the article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also have absolutely massive Conflict of Interest - you cannot advertise a non-notable blog/site, or unreferenced entities (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest policy and notability guidelines. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:51, 30 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I dont see why I have been blocked, people have lied to me by saying that I have made "pointless" pages, in which they think they can simply just delete. I plan on logging off, and never logging back on unless someone helps... Joe Grist (talk) 3:10 pm, Today (UTC−4)

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 19:10, 30 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand, I did not create the Sharecom article to self advertise, I created it because I wanted to give people information about the website... I might as well just give up. This is pathetic. Joe Grist (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your only editing here has been promotion of your non-notable unpublished book and your non-notable website. What is more, your unblock requests indicate quite clearly that you have not grasped the point that that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, so you are likely to do the same again. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a medium for people to spread the word to the world about work they want to make better known. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (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 will never create another page.

Fine, just unblock me, and I promise I won't "break the rules"...

Please unblock me.

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).

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

Request reason:

Look, I won't create anymore pages even if you do unblock me, yet you still have alot of nerve to call the things I have created "un-noteable". What makes you think you can just say that? (tempted) Joe Grist (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I won't create anymore pages even if you do unblock me"... if you do not intend to contribute to the encyclopedia, then there is no reason to unblock you. Kinu ^t/_c 16:16, 31 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

"if you do not intend to contribute to the encyclopedia" Who said I wouldnt contribute, I only said I wouldn't create any more "selfadvertising" pages... I believe this is WP:ADMINABUSE Joe Grist (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural; not a request to be unblocked. See also my comment below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:01, 31 August 2011 (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.

First, you don't need to use the unblock template to comment or reply on this talk page - I closed your previous unblock request because it was not a request for unblocking, but an accusation of admin abuse. So let's back up a bit - you agreed that you would not "create anymore pages" if unblocked, and that makes sense - you've had some problems with the articles you've created to date, and it is wise to refrain from creating articles until you get the hang of our policies and procedures. Since most of your activity has been these created articles, I have to ask - what do you plan to work on if you are unblocked? How do you plan to edit? If you can assure admins that you will edit productively and within policy, I think some might be convinced to unblock. Otherwise... not. Please take a step back and consider how best to proceed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How I will contribute if unblocked.

Bwilkins

I'm sorry for having issues with the rules and regulations with the site. However, I will contribute by fixing mistakes in some articles which need it. So if there are grammar errors, I could fix them. Sorry for all the advertising.