User talk:34pin6

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

34pin6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to, Thanks for doing the necessary work with Gnosis. The "Wikipedia Writing" page you found really scared me. I will keep my eye out for these sorts of editors/articles in the future. To know that Wikipedia now has PR firms explicitly and openly trying to subvert WP's goals (for cash, no less!) is galling, but i guess not really that surprising. Thanks for the help!)

:Wow! I had no idea I'd butted up against such an individual. Did you read some of the rants? A lot of anger there. Can't wait for his/her next for-profit foray into this world he/she hates so much. The Signpost should do an article on this outfit. Scary. The Interior )

::"the pansy version of the SS or Gestapo of WWII" Woo hoo!

What are you talking about? I am not a paid editor, nor do I have any connection to SM Kovalinsky. I happen to admire the firm for its charitable work and simply thought they should have any entry. You people have got to be the most presumptuous bunch I've ever seen. And the funny thing is, the more people attack you, the more fundamentalist and legalistic you become. I just can't understand the world you folks live in. I really can't.

Just because the firm does Wikipedia writing, doesn't mean they are not notable!! You people don't even follow your OWN rules! Where in the notability requirements does it say that a firm is disqualified from an article because they provide a service we don't like? Just so you know, their firm showed me how to edit wiki articles free of charge. So, I figured it would be nice to write one on them. From that, you all go way over to the other side of presumption, like you can read people's minds or something. I don't get.

What happened to assume good faith?

Decline reason:

First of all, please do not blame other editors in your unblock request. It won't do anything to help your case. Secondly, you're at least two other people, one of whom has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Smkovalinsky. TN X Man 00:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your claim of having no connection to Gnosis Arts is not credible. On their website they brag that they created the Wikipedia article on AA Auto Protection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).[1] This account created that article. There are other indicators that this is the same editor as banned user Petrosianii (talk · contribs), but those are best kept confidential. Will Beback talk 00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OKay I lied . you got me. You wanna arrest me? (You do, don't you)

But here's the problem: that no one seems to want to address. Paid editing is not against wikipedia policy. Is it frowned upon: yes. Is it a COI, yes. But is it against policy? And it seems odd to me, that something so objectionable, would be so hard to pass as policy??

No. So how does one go about it the right way? You never say. You say we should disclose our intentions. But when we do that, you slap good articles with COI and and the other b*****t you like to use. User:kohser flat out admits he's a paid editor, and has list of shitty articles worse than most of the ones we've written. But he was nominated to the Board and you don't go banning his acct.

You guys have all the power, and we have NONE. You don't get paid, but you keep all the power. We get paid, but we have very little power. I say, it's even.

Here's what's funny: if I don't want you to catch me, you won't. Why? Because there is still a such thing as privacy. You guys have all the privacy; we have very little. Really, if we play by all the rules, we have none. So we have to cheat the rules, in order to maintain the privacy you admins, sysops and checkusers enjoy routinely. pricks.

Ok Ok. So this means war. It is what it is now, I am waging war against you. And you're going to have to become the tyrant you think I am, in order to stop me. byaatch 34pin6 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing, in and of itself, is not prohibited. However evading blocks is not allowed. If you would like to get your original block overturned, you should appeal to the WP:ARBCOM or directly to user:Jimmy Wales. Edits by banned users may be reverted or deleted without any other cause, so even if you sneak back again you will find that your edits do not last and that your effort is wasted. That's not a productive solution for anyone. Pending your appeal, please do not return to editing. Will Beback talk 05:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Benowitz[edit]

The article David Benowitz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Individual of moniro if any notability, no 3rd-party profiles, created by paid editor.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Will Beback talk 00:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]