User talk:Livingingore32

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 or a web site, 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. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding your emails, the way to request an unblock is clearly described on the block message above. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have any connection to the building? 331dot (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I live near it. That’s my only connection.
 * can you give any additional comment? 331dot (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Livingingore32, you made several statements in your emails to me that indicated you had more ties to the building than just living near it. Could you explain, for example, how you would know that "People were still calling the business and showing up to the business thinking it was still a hotel" if your only connection is living near it?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not affiliated in anyway shape or form with this development/project. As previously mentioned, I live very close to the building. I frequent the building every once in a while and the staff has always told me that they get people coming in or trying to book hotel reservations, even though the building has long been converted into condos.

Therefore, i'm trying to make that distinction on the wikipedia page for the building and I was also trying to provide the current status of where this building is headed in terms of it's future.

I don't see how this is wrong. I'm adding to the validity and the value of the wikipedia entry, since the page contains a lack of new information on the building and it's current status and future. I'm not sure how that's a violation, which is why I was shocked when I got blocked.

I'm not looking to sell or help sell this product. I'm looking to add releavnt and new infromation to the official page in order for it to be accurate.

This is a historical building in the city I live in ( Hamilton) and in my opinion, it has a right to be updatedLivingingore32 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It’s also a place I visited with my grandparents as a child growing up. I’ve been keenly following the development from the begin and I just want to share the updates on the building on its official Wikipedia page.
 * I have globally renamed User:Royalconnaught to User:Livingingore32. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not affiliated in anyway shape or form with this development/project. As previously mentioned, I live very close to the building. I frequent the building every once in a while and the staff has always told me that they get people coming in or trying to book hotel reservations, even though the building has long been converted into condos.

Therefore, i'm trying to make that distinction on the wikipedia page for the building and I was also trying to provide the current status of where this building is headed in terms of it's future.

I don't see how this is wrong. I'm adding to the validity and the value of the wikipedia entry, since the page contains a lack of new information on the building and it's current status and future. I'm not sure how that's a violation, which is why I was shocked when I got blocked.

I'm not looking to sell or help sell this product. I'm looking to add releavnt and new infromation to the official page in order for it to be accurate.

This is a historical building in the city I live in ( Hamilton) and in my opinion, it has a right to be updated. Livingingore32 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * At this point there are two possibilities. Either you are operating in good faith but are, even in retrospect, unable to see the problems with your edits that multiple people pointed out ("without any valid reasons or evidence"). Then you'd likely continue to edit in the same problematic way if you were unblocked, disrupting the project. Or you, former User:Royalconnaught who had "the intention of editing several others", have more of a connection to the building and the involved companies than you say. Then, obviously, you cannot be unblocked either. I can't tell which of those two possibilities it is. I can tell, however, two things: Firstly, "I was very much in the process of doing so before getting blocked." You were editing more or less continuously from 19:41 to 20:22 (UTC), with the longest gap between edits 25 minutes. You were blocked at 23:07, almost three hours after your latest edit. I find it very difficult to believe that you either spent those hours trying to add sources without saving just once in between, or that you had just returned to editing after a long gap when you suddenly found yourself blocked. And secondly, "I will file a lawsuit against the users if this isn't settled in a normal fashion." - See WP:No legal threats. Users who engage in legal threats will be blocked from editing and cannot be unblocked unless the legal threat has been withdrawn unequivocally. Huon (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You can start addressing the problems with your conduct and the inconsistencies in your statements here. Or you can continue with legal threats despite having been told that those are inappropriate, threaten to evade your block (which violates Wikipedia's policies, for obvious reasons) and to either miss or avoid the point. One approach will be more helpful than the other. If you're interested in my IP address, you're welcome to ask the Wikimedia Foundation, which will provide it to you if you have a subpoena or the like. See wmf:Requests for user information procedures & guidelines. Good luck. As an aside, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can write on Wikipedia whatever you like, just as it doesn't mean I may spray-paint a message of my choice on the Royal Connaught's walls. Huon (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please stop using the unblock template for every reply. Only one active request on the page is needed at a time. Additional requests will not speed up your case in any way. I have de-activated the first two open requests on this page, and left the last one active. SQL Query me!  19:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have revoked talk page access since the editor continues to threaten block evasion despite being told that it's against Wikipedia's policies, in addition to an icreasing host of other problems. Another admin will review the unblock request(s). Huon (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)