The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

I have nominated So Klassik, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Klassik. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I42 ( talk) 06:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with The Klassikz. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. I42 ( talk) 07:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Klassik. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I42 ( talk) 07:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of So Klassik, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wikibin.org/articles/so-klassik.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on So Klassik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{ hang on}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply

A discussion has begun about whether the article So Klassik, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Klassik until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Frank  |   talk  17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:SoKlassik.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{ OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article So Klassik, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. - McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 03:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bldfire for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. VernoWhitney ( talk) 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bldfire! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

-- Kumioko ( talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert L. Gordon IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I've basically gutted this article, removing all the unsourced and poorly sourced content. I'm not sure what you were thinking, creating this resume in mainspace. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Robert L. Gordon IV, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Shenanigans, possible sockpuppetry at Robert L. Gordon IV. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

As a Checkuser has identified your edits as technically indistinguishable from the other two editors involved ( [1] ) I have blocked those two accounts. If you continue with the problematic editing patterns from this one, it will be blocked for at least 24 hours for violations of our abuse of multiple accounts policy ( WP:SOCK). Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I've blocked this account indefinitely (prior to seeing the conflicting message above). Due to a history of socking to gain the upper hand in discussions, the active hoax/deceptive nature of your talk page, and the high probability that this is a sleeper account and/or you will continue to abuse Wikipedia policy, the account has been blocked indefinitely to protect against further disruption. If you wish to appeal the block please use {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}} to do so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Robert L. Gordon IV. Since you had some involvement with the Robert L. Gordon IV redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Robert McClenon, We're having an edit-a-thon to add notable STEM minorities into Wikipedia, and it seems like my account has been blocked (after being a member of wikipedia for 7 years!). I believe this person Robert L. Gordon IV is notable and not certain why my account (and seems like others in the room as well) have been blocked. Lot's of frustrations here, so any help would be appreciated, but looks like our edit-a-thon event has gone awry. This saddens me. Bldfire ( talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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).

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

---

Request reason:

For the past few days in our local office, we've been having an edit-a-thon to add notable STEM minorities into Wikipedia, and it seems like my account has been blocked (after being a member of Wikipedia for 7 years!). I believe this person Robert L. Gordon IV is notable and not certain why my account (and seems like others in the room as well) have been blocked. Lot's of frustrations here, so any help would be appreciated, but looks like our edit-a-thon event has gone awry. This saddens me. Bldfire ( talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

I don't find your excuse credible. Your "group" decided to rely on deceptive practices to rally support for one another. After seeing this posting, it is clear that you have not acknowledged what you or your group have done which is wrong.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2015 (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.

An editathon on one article over days and purposefully misleading user pages? Come on. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Of course. We're a small group of 5, we've got a list of a couple of more folks we'd like to add, but decided to start with Mr. Gordon. User:NeilN, your attitude from this whole process has been quite off-putting. This has been unfortunate all-around. Bldfire ( talk) 20:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Aisha Bowe, another young African American, was supposed to be next. user:Ponyo User:Black Kite Bldfire ( talk) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Repeatedly adding plainly misleading information and sources to a biography does not help your case. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Bldfire, while there was criticism of this article, you are blocking because it was found you were using multiple accounts to work on this article. This is not allowed on Wikipedia unless it is a valid alternate account. In order to be unblocked, you will have to address these charges of sock puppeting and promise to use one account and to have a user page that actually represents you (instead of saying that you've written over 100 articles). If this is some awful mixup because of this editathon and different people are using the same computers, you'll need to explain that then.

As for Robert L. Gordon IV, he doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability for new articles. That doesn't mean that he will never have an article but that the article, with the information it contained, did not demonstrate sufficient notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Liz We did this in a small office and only have a couple of devices. I'm ending the editathon (since 1. we can no longer edit and 2. this whole thing discouraged some of the volunteers.) I'd personally just like my privileges back. It also seems like someone else should take over the article (and hopefully Aisha Bowe as well) since the purpose of all this was to add minority representation in the tech/STEM space. Regardless of the mix-up, thanks for taking the time to explain everything. Bldfire ( talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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).

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

---

Request reason:

We did this in a small office and only have a couple of devices. I'm ending the editathon (since 1. we can no longer edit and 2. this whole thing discouraged some of the volunteers.) I'd personally just like my privileges back. It also seems like someone else should take over the Robert L. Gordon IV article (and hopefully Aisha Bowe as well) since the purpose of all this was to add minority representation in the tech/STEM space. Regardless of the mix-up, thanks for taking the time to explain everything. Seems like we have done something that is against the rules and won't happen again. Bldfire ( talk) 21:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

An editathon 2 days long? With only one page edited? Oh c'mon. Max Semenik ( talk) 23:16, 29 April 2015 (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.

A look at the deleted contributions is quite helpful here. This is blatantly promotional WP:COI editing, and quite a bit of deception going on. Huon ( talk) 23:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert L. Gordon IV 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/Robert L. Gordon IV 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. BDD ( talk) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply