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).

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

Request reason:

as far as i know, there was no reason to block my user page. i put links to wikipedia articles i had worked on and to some of my personal sites that i run. what else is a personal user page for?

Decline reason:

It's a place to write something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. It's not a place to advertise your business. The reason you're blocked, however, is your username: Wikipedia considers usernames that are the names of companies or websites promotional. You are welcome to create a new account or to use the code {{unblock-un | user=new username | reason=your reason here}} to request change of username. Huon (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (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.

using internet way back machine i can see my old user talk page: https://web.archive.org/web/20051215000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RatJed

I don't see whats wrong with it? is it because I put a link to my computer consulting business? And since that wasn't against the rules when I did it, can you really fault me for that, can you? Thats called a retroactive law, which is not fair. You should have contacted me and told me to change it or just removed the part that was not allowed anymore, or something. I have been a wikipedia user and supporter since the beginning and I am very disillusioned right now. Ratjed (talk) 20:40, 2016-03-11 (UTC)

"RatJed" is not the name of a company. It has been my username since 1993 on various sites and platforms. I AM RatJed, that name is my nick name. I am also a musician though so that may confuse matters because when I publish music I use my nick name, and when I write articles about topics I would rather not associate with my birthname I use the nickname. Here is the exact meta description that my site has had for years: <meta name="Description" content="This is RatJed's site for his music, theories and random thoughts.">

Check this out, http://www.joesmith.com/ exists, its a website, and you have user JoeSmith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JoeSmith . But according to the above statement "Wikipedia considers usernames that are the names of companies or websites promotional" then JoeSmith should no longer be a valid username.

Also I have had an account since 2004 with the same username and ratjed.com was my site then too, so why would you suddenly consider it promotional now. I get it you eventually changed rules to disallow links to a person's business. I would not post that now but again I remind everyone that the content on my user page had contained links to websites since 2005 and was left all that time, then instead of asking me to take it down or simply deleting it, my account is suspended.

Yes I see that I could create another account but if I did that it would just be RatJed1, RatJed2 and so on as each one gets blocked. Or I could request my username be changed, but why would I do that. RatJed is my username, its always has been on every site where I have a public personal presence. So instead I will hold out here on my user talk page. I won't contribute to wikipedia unless this account is unblocked. And I will tell everyone I know this whole story. And when I really think about why would I even want to contribute to wikipedia when I don't get paid! Ratjed (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Suggested Edits[edit]

Since I can't make edits to any other page that this, I will keep a list of edits that should be done, and if someone wants to do them they can, or not.

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_(town),_New_York the sentencve " on account of the many Indian children who had assembled on one of the bluffs" should be changed to "on account of the many indigenous children who had assembled on one of the bluffs " or a suitable alternative such as "native American" or other more correct term. I don't think I need to cite sources here to note that the Hudson river is not in India! Ratjed (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Physical system[edit]

The article Physical system has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources - this appears to be a definition page, not an encyclopedia page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - car chasm (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Physical system for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Physical system 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/Physical system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

- car chasm (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]