User talk:TheDailyFlows

Comment

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Tip: Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Deb (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read it again. I agree that there are some issues with the article you cited, but does not come close to the promotional language in the article you created. Deb (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I'll abide by whatever they decide. Deb (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff doesn't help your article. I looked at Chinavision, and noted that although it has some issues it has been edited by another admin, Deb in the last two hours. She presumably found it acceptable. There is nothing to stop you posting again, but you will need to write in a neutral way with independent verifiable sources and evidence of notability guidelines. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the "other stuff" link is the fact that there is rubbish that has succeeded in getting posted doesn't mean that anything substandard should be accepted. Following your comments, I have looked again and deleted Chinavision

nothing more or less 'notable' about their existence than our own. You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheDailyFlows, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi TheDailyFlows!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

--

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Ways to improve Safer Wholesale

Hi, I'm Itsalleasy. TheDailyFlows, thanks for creating Safer Wholesale!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please improve article, it seems to be clearly marketing company without any encyclopedic reference.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Safer Wholesale

Hello, TheDailyFlows. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Safer Wholesale, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Safer Wholesale

Hello TheDailyFlows,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Safer Wholesale for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Itsalleasy (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiverr has significant importance to be included as an encyclopedia content, can you please add relevant third party references on your page from news website including nytimes, independent and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsalleasy (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed this. You should not remove speedy-deletion templates from pages you have created. Instead, you should "contest" the nomination. In any case, I was going to remove the speedy-deletion template because this page's claims are credible (vs. "totally made up" - a claim that the company made a trillion dollars on its first day would be "not credible") and they barely cross over the point of indicating that the company might be important. However, they fall far short of showing that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so I nominated it for deletion. There will be a 7-day discussion during which time you are encouraged to read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and possibly WP:WEB) and, if this company does meet those guidelines, improve the article to demonstrate that it does. I very much doubt that the company qualifies, as by far most companies do not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Safer Wholesale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Safer Wholesale 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/Safer Wholesale 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for bringing attention to sub-standard articles so they can be reviewed, improved upon, or nominated for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Fiverr and TaskRabbit. Both are sub-standard and both need improvement, but based on a 5-minute glance at several of the references in each one, each company either barely meets Wikipedia's notability requirements and would therefore survive any deletion discussion or it is that "grey area" where different editors would have differing opinions of whether the company meets Wikipedia's notability requirements and there would be no "consensus" to delete the page. It is possible that these companies are in fact not notable but it would take an hour or two of research to prove that the references are either not reliable sources or that they are essentially copies of each other, and of course I could only prove that if it were in fact the case, which doesn't seem likely. However, if you can show that either or both of these companies does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria then please nominate them for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the companies are notable enough to qualify for an article, which seems to be the case, please consider editing them so they have a neutral point of view and only contain content of interest to most readers (both articles have minutia and trivia that can be removed, and at least one has promotional material that should be either removed or re-stated in a non-promotional way). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first article

Please read Wikipedia:Your first article for general help on article-writing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse invitation

Hello! TheDailyFlows, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. While I do not hang around the Teahouse, I understand that there are plenty of people there who are good at helping new editors become familiar with Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove "articles for deletion" templates, and do not remove cleanup templates without good cause

You removed several templates from Safer Wholesale. I restored them. Unlike the proposed deletion template which can be removed by anyone at any time, it is considered "against the rules" to remove an "articles for deletion" template from an article while the discussion is ongoing. The template will be removed in a week by the closing administrator when the discussion is closed. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for the ins-and-outs of the AFD process.

Removing cleanup templates whose reason for placement hasn't been either addressed or discussed is also considered "bad form." As the notability issues and referencing issues have neither been addressed nor discussed, I have restored them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Safer Wholesale with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages as you did with this edit to Safer Wholesale. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aww...does someone have God Complex? Yes, I think so.

Leave my article alone - last warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDailyFlows (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over templates at the top of Safer Wholesale

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute over the templates at the top of Safer Wholesale. The thread is Safer Wholesale. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article ownership

Pages in the main encyclopedia ("Articles", as opposed to "project pages," "user pages," and "talk pages") are not "owned" by anyone. Most pages other than "your user page" and its sub-pages are not "owned" by anyone either. See WP:OWN for a discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing again, this time for three days, for continuing exactly the same disruptive editing that led to your previous block. If you continue in the same way after this block expires, it is quite likely that you may be blocked indefinitely, as the net effect of your participation in the project is negative, including wasting a lot of other editors' time who have to clear up after your persistent and deliberate disruption. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other disruptive editing that you have been engaged in is repeatedly removing an "articles for deletion" template from an article. There are two things to say about this.

Probably you did this in an attempt to prevent deletion. However, removing an AfD template does not prevent deletion. Even if the template had not been restored, your removing it would not have caused the deletion discussion to magically disappear, and at the end of the time for the discussion an administrator would still have reviewed the discussion, and decided whether the article should be deleted. The presence or absence of a template on the article would have made no difference to that process. In fact, the only difference it would have made would have been that people reading the article would not have known about the discussion, so they could not have chosen to take part.
Whether, as seems likely, your repeated removal of the template was based on the mistaken belief that doing so would prevent deletion, or whether it was done with other intention, such as wishing to restrict the range of editors who could take part in the discussion, it was clearly a deliberate attempt to disrupt the collaborative process. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and people who deliberately seek to disrupt collaboration so that they can unilaterally impose their own preferred view are not welcome here. Please bear this in mind when this block expires, and try to edit in cooperation with other editors, rather than in opposition to them. If you can do that, you will be able to become a useful and welcome contributor to the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to what JamesBWatson says. When I came to Wikipedia in late 2006, I had a serious bias in a broad topic area, which meant that my editing in that topic area was in conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Unlike many who come with an agenda, I was blind to my bias. I was blocked for several weeks and to this day I am not allowed to edit articles in this area ("topic banned") except perhaps typo-fixing and other clerical edits and policy-enforcement edits (e.g. removal of copyright violations, etc.). Both before and after the block, I was and am a responsible editor in other topic areas and as far as I know, I am fairly well respected on Wikipedia.

Regarding the topic ban - it's just as well, as that topic area is one that would probably just raise my blood pressure if I read those articles much less edited them.

For what it's worth, in late 2009, I wrote up a public apology for my bad behavior. I don't think such an apology was required by the Wikipedia community, it's just something I felt that I needed to do at the time.

I look forward to a time when you are considered an "established editor" with a good reputation here on Wikipedia.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a brief survey about The Wikipedia Adventure

Hi! Thanks for playing The Wikipedia Adventure, or at least considering it. We'd like to hear about your thoughts and feelings on the game, to help us improve it. Please take this brief survey: 10 minute survey.

--thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 20:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of January 20 2014

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

daveofoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

There are no links to flows.org that exist nor were any created; I do not own that site

Decline reason:

I can't help wondering why you raise the issue of links to flows.org, since as far as I can see nobody had mentioned them to you, and certainly they were not given as a reason for blocking in the block notice. However, be that as it may, you have not given any reason for unblocking. Everything about your editing suggests that you are here for promotional purposes, and nothing you have said indicates otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheDailyFlows (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except you did add several with your IP, and you've been adding a ton of SEO and refspam. I'm not here to out you, but you may want to start acting a little more ethical and transparent with your jobs. Kuru (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation as a "mere" editor (not an admin): Go do something else for awhile. Find another way to spend your spare time. After 6 months, ask yourself "Do I care to go back and edit Wikipedia? If so, am I willing to spend a month or two editing only things I don't care about at all and after that only edit articles in which I have no real or apparent conflict of interest, and am I willing to take the time to learn the ins and outs of all of the editor-behavior and content-related rules before adding new content to articles?" If the answer is yes then read Wikipedia:Standard offer and ask yourself if you really want to come back and edit constructively. If you are willing to do what it takes to become a good editor, starting with taking a long-enough break that you are no longer emotionally tied invested in Wikipedia, you may make a good editor.

My recommendation for administrators: Go ahead and rename the account if the name he chose is available. It's better for his current name to not show up in edit histories. If and when he does ask to come back, monitor him for at least the first couple of months or first couple of hundred of article-space edits, whichever is longer.

I'm living proof that someone who was indef-blocked for editing inappropriately can come back and make a positive contribution. I'm holding out the same for this editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the biggest disappointment here; there's an excellent and professional writer behind this account that could be a solid contributor if he would drop the anything-for-buck edits and the edit warring. Classic WP:NOTHERE at the moment, but certainly open to an unblock if there is a positive response. No objection to the rename in any case since it connects easily to a real-world identity. Kuru (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the pragmatic statements, and do fully intend on editing with more 'couth', if you will. I do not believe I need a 6 month hiatus to prove this, although I can certainly understand the direction your statement was going. My apologies for conduct unbecoming of the true writing professional I've spent the last 21 years becoming. The user name I have chosen is one I will stick with and not ruinTheDailyFlows (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional editing can backfire

Because your editing drew attention to the use of ~~"flows.com"~~ "flows.org" in external links, I and possibly others have scoured Wikipedia and removed the phrase from all articles, possibly including articles that you never edited.

In the cases that I removed, the link was being used inappropriately. In at least one case, I found a page where at least half of the "external links" section appeared to have links that clearly didn't belong there and the remaining links were possibly spam and definitely of no or at best marginal value on the page so I just deleted the entire section (diff). So I guess, in a way, your adding these links wound up improving the encyclopedia - or at least the article I just linked to - just not in the way you envisioned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the mistake. I have corrected it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break of 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To JamesWatson - the initial reason given for my blocking stated something about backlinks to Flows.org (not flows.com - if you intend on scolding me like a 4 year old, at least have correct facts) - I should know; I read it. To approach me like I'm 4 is an insult to my intelligence - I have been extremely civil during this process of being blocked. Yes, I may have made some unscrupulous edits. And, as I stated above, I realize the err of my ways. You are the furthest thing from a judge - you may administer a large encyclopedia, but you are NOT qualified to tell me what, how, when or why I explain my wrongdoings. I stated that I am ready to start anew, and that I realized the unbecoming conduct that I engaged in was against Wikipedia rules. I really DO NOT plan on making it a point to explain the obvious - I engaged in anti-Wikipedia edits, I am sorry, and I would like to make a positive change.

Did you not read the excerpt from above where Davidwr made a positive change - after being barred for life?

Do you realize how many Wikipedia pages exist that would fall under 'self-promotional'? Isn't the constant pleas for outside pledges a method of 'self promoting' that Wikipedia engages in quite frequently, especially when news reports have clearly identified Wikipedia as having a surplus of funds on hand to run their website? Come up with a clear, concise definition of 'promotional', and I bet I'll find 1,000 pages before today's up meeting your criteria - yet JamesWatson wants me to grovel in fear because of what amounted to be 5 insertions with what's perceived to be 'promotional'?

If my intention was to consistently be a pest on Wikipedia, I wouldn't make this plea - usernames and IP addresses are a dime a dozen, and I could spend my entire life wreaking havoc. Kuru and Davidwr apparently see that I've been professionally writing for 20+ years, and want to make a positive change. In case my words have fallen upon blurry eyes, I am doing this appeal process the right way.

Honestly, I am trying really hard to be civil, but individuals coming at me like JamesWatson is apparently hellbent on doing shows little professionalism, and also lacks any relevancy to the unblocking I requested (which was fine with another admin). If my apologetic nature and will to change is good enough for the next WikiGod, so be it - I am ready to edit some encyclopedic content! TheDailyFlows (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the best way to respond to a perceived or actual injustice is not to respond at all.

Sometimes the best way is to respond it to "grin and bear it" and respond with grace and humility as if no injustice occurred.

Sometimes, the best way is to stand up and defend yourself. This is not one of those times: If others watching this conversation came to the same conclusion that you did regarding JamesWatson's decline of your appeal and were ready to speak up on your behalf, your response has probably made them less likely to want to do so.

I think it would do you, personally, some good to step away from Wikipedia for awhile, long enough to emotionally detach from the project. When you get to the point that you wouldn't object to being allowed to edit only articles that neither you nor anyone "close" to you personally or professionally gives a hill of beans about, then you might be ready to return without putting your emotional health and editing privileges at risk. I don't know how long this will be, but I would be very surprised if it's less than a month or two and if I were a betting man I would say it would be more like 6-12 months. For some editors in your situation, it would take them years to fully emotionally detach from Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was me, not the administrator, who made the .com/.org mistake. For that I sincerely apologize. I have fixed the error. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the positive response I was looking for; good luck. Kuru (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not about to whine, cry or grovel just to get this editing ban overturned. I presented my apology, and my will to change. And, again, I wasn't put on Earth to please you, or anyone else - so, what specifically 'you are looking for' or the 'secret sauce' you want me to douse my errors with is moot to me... Take what I'm saying to heart, or with a grain of salt - I'll still pour my coffee the same way tomorrow morning. Finally, I told you all that I really wanted to be civil and appeal the proper way. So, now we go back to 2nd grade where I simply change my IP, username and continue forth with my editorial quest...and you'll never know it was me.

Throw your Wiki-weight around somewhere else - quite frankly, it's unattractive to see grown folks talk down to individuals that are actually trying to show good faith and use the Wikipedia appeals process properly. However, since now individuals (Davidwr a sole exception) want to strut their administrator stuff, we'll play... TheDailyFlows (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your message to me. I will try to answer some of your points. I hope that doing so will help to clarify things.

You refer to "flows.org", and go on to say "not flows.com - if you intend on scolding me like a 4 year old, at least have correct facts". As you will see, if you look carefully at what I wrote, I did indeed refer to "flows.org", not "flows.com", so in that respect I did "have correct facts".

The block notice says "our account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes", and does not mention "flows.org". Because your unblcok request refers to "flows.org", I searched for that, and did not find it, so I wondered why you raised the issue. I now see that there was a mention on the page of "flows.com", but since in your unblock request you referred only to "flows.org", I had no reason to search for "flows.com", and consequently didn't see it.

I have no idea what aspect of what I wrote gave you the impression that I was treating you like a four year old. I certainly had no intenetion of doing so.

I made no attenmpt to "what, how, when or why [you] explain [your] wrongdoings": I simply explained that nothing you had said indicated that you were not still here for promotional purposes, which is a quite different matter.

You are, unfortunately, perfectly right in saying that there are many promotional pages on Wikipedia. Obviously, they are deleted when they are drawn to the attention of administrators. If, however, you mean that the fact that there are many pages that are not compliant with Wikipedia policy somehow means that we should not take action on those that do come to our attention, then I disagree.

The suggestion that I want you "to grovel in fear" is, frankly, absurd. Nothing I have written could possibly be read as indicating that.

I have never suggested that you intend "to consistently be a pest". I have merely said that you appear to intend to use Wikipedia for promotion. There are many people who conme here with that in mind, in perfectly good faith, not seeing anythoing wrong with doing so, and without any intention of being pests. I have no reason at all to doubnt that you are one of those. However, it is perfectly possible to have good-faith intentions which happen to conflict with Wikipedia policies.

I note your stated intention of evading the block. I really do not recommend that. If you intend to do editing which is unrelated to promoting any business, web site, or anything else, then simply make a new unblock request in which you say so, and you can be unblocked. If, however, you try to be devious, as you suggest, and evade the block, and if you are found out, you will be blocked again, and the likelihood of being unblocked will diminish every time you do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your last paragraph is completely arbitrary as I already know the ramifications of Wikipedia wrongdoings...thank you, Mr. Obvious.

My first conversation was an unblock request stating my intention to be a positive contributor to this society...that's all I have to say. You can attempt to verbally strongarm me - it will not work. TheDailyFlows (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

daveofoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I intend to do editing which is unrelated to promoting any business, web site, or anything else, and would like to grow as Wikipedia editor. My vernacular is more than sufficient to bring about positivity, and I never intended to harm or demean encyclopedic content currently available across Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Based on the conversation above, I do not believe that unblocking this account is appropriate at this time. Threats to just use sockpuppets are not helpful and do not show an intent to edit appropriately on the project at this time. only (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]