User talk:ASTEKA TELEVISION

March 2018
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Question, what exactly did he do? His username doesn't violate our username policy. ASTEKA TELEVISION is maybe promotional but he definitely doesn't deserve to be indefinitely blocked solely on his promotional username. We have blue warning templates for that as far as I remember.--Biografer (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Edge cases get warned. Irrefutably promotional usernames that imply a shared account get indef-blocked. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me)(My edits) @  01:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen him "trolling" so I thought this suppose to be treated as "Edge" and get a warning first?... Also, to elaborate on the whole thing, is not the block but the template, which was wrongly written. The template reads: "because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia", non of them apply to this account.--Biografer (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For the future, use this template instead if your plan is to block them only for a promotional username.--Biografer (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Biografer, amazing - thousands of edits and you still have not learnt to do proper links! Your link to User talk:Williamfloydmarketing was wrong in two respects: it was in external link format and you should have linked to uw-spamublock instead of linking to a use of it. Most definitely does need to be blocked. But yes, I used a misleading message template. I generally use uw-spamublock but in this case there was not much spam in their contribution. There is a curious anomaly in the uw templates: uw-ublock mentions 'related to a "real-world" group or organization' but uw-uhblock which is listed as the "hard" version of uw-ublock does not include the "group or organisation" reason. I wanted to use the "hard" version to suggest that that there was no point in coming back with an acceptable user name because their edits suggested incompetence and no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazing - we just met, and you already taunting me on how to use a template? What incompetence? I seen them making 0 edits (or should I say 2 (according to their edit history), none of which I can see). But yes, thank you for pointing that out (I at first thought that uw-uhblock will link to multiple templates such as here Uw-vandalism1). Sorry about that. By the way, you can use this template too Uw-soablock, it definitely fits the current issue. :)--Biografer (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)