User talk:Firesprinklerdragon

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, 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 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 at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 16:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hydronicseng (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

UNBLOCK REQUEST
One unblock request at a time, please. Note that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest around this subject area and so your current unblock request is inappropriate. If you wish to write about something unrelated to fire sprinklers and fire hydrants and such matters, please modify your unblock request to note this. Otherwise, please retract your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

YOU BLOCKED A USER WHO WAS TRYING TO HELP IMPROVE A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
Dear Alexf and Yamla, It seems that Wikipedia is restricting me from making contributions on topics related to fire sprinklers and fire hydrants. Furthermore, it appears that your block was triggerd when I attempted to [edit] the "External Links" to the following Wikipedia content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_calculation

External links [edit]

National Fire Protection Association (http://www.nfpa.org/) Hydratec, Inc. - Fire Sprinkler Hydraulic Calculation Software (http://www.hydracad.com/) Canute LLP - Fire Sprinkler Hydraulic Calculation Software (http://www.canutesoft.com/) M.E.P.CAD, Inc. - Fire Sprinkler Hydraulic Calculation Software (http://www.autosprink.com/)

Each one of the items in the "External links" are to commercial websites. I was simply acting in good faith in response to the request posted at the top of that page: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources."

Unless you discovered something I don't know, please explain why I should suffer a "block" if I am a Wikipedia member who is merely doing what I am supposed to do: adding to the list of URLs already on that page? Thank You.

Firesprinklerdragon (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We've already explained the problem. Your original username was Hydronicseng and there's a website for that business. That and your topics of interest strongly implies you are related to that company. Therefore, WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:PROMO applies. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

DOES THE BLOCK PREVENT ME FROM CREATING AND POSTING AN ARTICLE
Dear Yamla, Does the "block" prevent me from writing and posting on fire sprinklers and fire hydrants? If that is the case then I don't see the point of to this Wikipedia membership. Thank You.

Firesprinklerdragon (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop shouting. The block prevents you from all edits. If unblocked, you would be required to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which includes (but obviously is not limited to) WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:PROMO. --Yamla (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If unblocked I will comply with the rules of [edit]
Dear Yamla, If unblocked I will adhere to the Wikipedia rules that pertain to using the [edit] feature. I do understand your concern about "conflict of interest" and assure you that I am not trying to commercially promote myself on Wikipedia. Thank You.

Firesprinklerdragon (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In what specific ways would your future edits be different? --Yamla (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I will follow the "Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia"
Dear Yamla, My future edits in Wikipedia will follow the "Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia":

Rule 1. Register an account with Wikipedia Rule 2. Learn the five pillars of Wikipedia

Pillar 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Pillar 2: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view Pillar 3: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute Pillar 4: Editors should treat each other with respect and civility Pillar 5: Wikipedia has no firm rules

Rule 3. Be bold, but not reckless Rule 4. Know your audience Rule 5. Do not infringe copyright Rule 6. Cite, cite, cite Rule 7. Avoid shameless self-promotion Rule 8. Share your expertise, but don't argue from authority Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight Rule 10. Ask for help

I will consult the 10 rules before I try to edit any content in Wikipedia. Thank You.


 * You haven't answered my question. As I've repeatedly pointed you at WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:PROMO and you obviously haven't read them, I'm not going to respond any further, here. Another admin will be along shortly to review your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

READING THE WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:PROMO
Dear Yamla, I have begun reading the WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:PROMO that you referenced in your response and will get back to you shortly. Thank You.

148.0.243.51 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A comment which is wholly irrelevant to your block/unblock situation, but which would make your editing neater. I see that you tend to indent paragraphs when typing text, as you might well do when writing on paper. Do not do this; it makes your texts very untidy looking. If you wish to indent, start your line with one or more colons. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The Indenting Habit
Dear Anthony, I just noticed that Wikipedia articles are not indented and they do make use of colons. Still have a lot of studying before I can do anything on Wikipedia. I appreciate your suggestion. Thank You.

Complaints Against Wikipedia
Dear Yamla, I'm about a week into my Wikipedia membership but I am not sure if I want to remain the member of such an abrasive gaggle of dictators. My biggest problem is your tendency of hurriedly jumping to conclusions on the basis of scant evidence, as your actions have clearly demonstrated in this case. Worse still is how you doggedly cling to your dogmatic views, regardless of what proof is offered to counter your false allegations. You also demonstrate a proclivity to bully contributors into compliance through verbal coercion and harassment. It is a well documented fact that your administrators suffer from racial and gender bias. That your administrators have been shamelessly involved in promoting businesses for their personal gain. So tell me. What are you going to do differently to change your horribly negative image? Who do you think you are? If I need to edit something I will ask somebody else to do it for me. Somebody who can put up with our utter nonsense. Thank You.

Excessive Rule Making and Your Stinking Attitude
Dear Yamla, read this, it's about Wikipedia in case you might be wondering why you are driving me and other new contributors away from Wikipedia. Just because you "think" there's a "conflict of interest" does not mean that it exists. You need to drop your "hair trigger quick draw McGraw" attitude. It never works and has already hurt Wikipedia. Change course and fix your stinking attitude.

Excessive rule-making[edit] Various figures involved with the Wikimedia Foundation have argued that Wikipedia's increasingly complex policies and guidelines are driving away new contributors to the site. Former chair Kat Walsh has criticized the project in recent years, saying, "It was easier when I joined in 2004... Everything was a little less complicated.... It's harder and harder for new people to adjust."[175] Top Wikipedia administrator Oliver Moran also views "policy creep" as the major barrier, writing that "the loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage".[176]

In his 2014 book, Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Jemielniak, the Wikimedia steward, states similarly that the sheer complexity of the rules and laws governing content and editor behavior has become excessive and creates a learning burden for new editors.[6][7] In a 2013 study, Aaron Halfaker of the University of Minnesota concluded the same thing.[8] Jemielniak suggests actively abridging and rewriting the rules and laws to fall within a fixed and reasonable limit of size and complexity to remedy their excessive complexity and size.[6][7]

Firesprinklerdragon (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you propose to change your oppressive regime?
Dear Yamla and Company, The excerpt below was extracted from an article in Wikipedia. It should be easy to digest since there are no indents and best of all: it's on Wikipedia. Notice my colon? Now let's see yours. That was a joke by-the-way. Keep your colon to yourself. It's smelling bad enough in here without it. So read and tell me what you think. You can still think can't you? I don't want to hear the same old tired story about your rules being "violated" by self promoting individuals. How do you propose to change your oppressive regime? So that Wikipedia is not run by a small clique of administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, mediators, arbitrators and oversighters. Don't forget to read the excerpt below. It's on Wikipedia. Thank You.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Social stratification[edit] Despite the perception that the Wikipedia process is democratic, "a small number of people are running the show",[177] including administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers, mediators, arbitrators, and oversighters.[10] In an article on Wikipedia conflicts in 2007, The Guardian discussed "a backlash among some editors, who say that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalize in the first place" based on the experiences of one editor who became a vandal after his edits were reverted and he was blocked for edit warring.[178]

Firesprinklerdragon (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk page

 * For continued abuse of the privilege, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)