User talk:Timber2012

March 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at the deleted article, and it looks perfectly neutral to me, not at all promotional. Also, even if you saw it as advertising, an indefinite block on the basis of three edits without any warning is surely the kind of thing we normally reserve for really serious problematic editing, such as gross libel. Do you have any objection to unblocking? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with JamesBWatson; I doubt the app is notable, and creating a draft via the Article Wizard would have been better than directly creating a live article, but the page wasn't indef-block-worthy spam. (On the other hand, I don't agree with the "perfectly neutral" assessment: "allows the user", "detailed statistics" - that's the kind of language I would expect from a PR campaign, not from an encyclopedia article.) Huon (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

So any chance of an unblock please? :)

Timber2012, what sorts of edits do you intend to make if unblocked? Would you also agree to not edit about the app in question? what are your feelings on this? 331dot (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've just re-reviewed the article, and still think that it's spammy. An editor who creates such an article immediately upon registration is likely to have some kind of undeclared conflict of interest. This was probably paid editing. As such, I don't intend to unblock here. If this editor provides a good rationale for wanting to be unblocked (responding to the question above about what they'd work on), I'd have no objection to another admin unblocking them though if they judge this to be worth the risk. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"your unblock request makes it absolutely clear that this is not your first account. In all likelihood, you are a sockpuppet of an unknown previously blocked advertising account." - I'm not sure how you're jumping to this conclusion? This is my first account. How does requesting an unblock make it clear that it's not my first account? Surely that's what you're supposed to do when you get blocked from editing and want to make more edits. I've agreed not to create the page again if unblocked. I've stated which Wikipedia pages I would like to edit. I've been reasonable, and I really can't understand your hostility. As explained already, I had no ties to the original page; I'm simply. a skiing enthusiast, and I'd like to make more productive, neutral edits to other pages as well. Timber2012 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)}}


 * You perfectly created an SEO-optimized article with linkspam and PR/churnalism sourcing and in your unblock requests show a familiarity not only with wikimarkup but with specific templates used on Wikimedia projects. Your request simply isn’t believable. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"[I] perfectly created an SEO-optimized article with linkspam and PR/churnalism sourcing"

"[I] perfectly created an SEO-optimized article with linkspam and PR/churnalism sourcing" - I read Notability before creating the article and it said to provide reliable sources with "editorial integrity". You have argued that it is "link spam and PR/churnalism sourcing", and while I can't find out how to see the article that I had created now (as has been deleted), I definitely tried to source neutral and reliable articles, and tried to not source to link spam and PR/churnalism. The sources I had posted were certainly no more PR/churnalistic than other sources from similar articles that I looked at.

"[my] unblock requests show a familiarity not only with wikimarkup but with specific templates used on Wikimedia projects" - while I've never edited Wikipedia in the past, I've used Wikipedia as a resource for 10+ years, so I am familiar with templates on other projects. For the article I created, I did copy the template of an article for a similar company rather than try to reinvent the wheel and create my own random template, which I'm sure would have got me banned as well. As for Wikimarkup, before making the article, I made sure I familiarised myself with it as it's the language used to write Wikipedia articles, which was what I was doing. But it's just simple code, is not difficult to learn how to read or write, and I'd expect most new users would familiarise themselves with it at a basic level like myself.

I'd like to reiterate that I have no ties to the article I created. I completely understand that administrators would like to make Wikipedia free from any spam and unnecessary, un-notable articles being created and I appreciate the work that you do to make Wikipedia the great resource that it is. But as a skiing and technology enthusiast, my article creation was a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia.

I'm brand new to the community and still learning the ropes, and while I undoubtably took on a big project as my first one, I definitely feel that I'm not worthy of a permanent ban. If unblocked, I will hold off on major edits and new article creation until I am more experienced on what looks like an advertisement or what is spammy. Some of the work I'd like to undertake has been outlined in my unblock request. (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)}}