User talk:Ccox@adobe.com

Welcome!

Hello, Ccox@adobe.com, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Adobe Photoshop. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GSK ✉ ✓ 20:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an experiment, that was removing incorrect information and speculation and replacing it with authoritative information. If you are going to revert all edits with authoritative information, you really should not have editorial authority on wikipedia.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Admr Boltz 20:43, 9 January 2014 (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).

Ccox@adobe.com (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When adding authoritative information, it helps to know the source of the authoritative information. There are thousands of people with my name in the world, but only one that actually writes Adobe Photoshop. Disambiguating myself from the voice actor, comedian, DJ, horse rider, country singer, US representative, racing drive, conductor, etc. bearing the same name requires that I include something with my user name that denotes WHICH Chris Cox I am. (BTW - you may wish to review old naming policies that encouraged my current name on wikipedia) As for conflict of interest: I am editing nothing that promotes or denigrates Adobe or it's competitors (though I have had to remove defacement that denigrated one or the other). I am primarily correcting information on the product that I write (since I know it rather well), and correcting related topics that needed better information. Ccox@adobe.com (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but:

It doesn't matter who adds text to our articles. What matters, however, is that all information must be based on what was published in reliable, secondary sources. As such, it doesn't matter what your username is - "Chris Cox at Adobe", "Emperor of Universe" or "Chris123456789", it doesn't change anything in editing process and does not give you any privileges.
Still, as you appear to be an Adobe employee and our conflict of interest policy highly recommends you to abstain from editing in areas related to Adobe. If you choose to continue, please familiarize yourself with it thoroughly.
- And although we don't block on sight for edits like this one, you should be extremely cautious on talk pages too as people might think that Adobe suppresses even discussion on some topics if you remove others' comments like that (I know, most likely you did that unintentinally).
Our username policy prohibits names like yours, so unfortunately you'll need to pick another username to be unblocked - see above how to do it. I don't remember what that policy said in 2005 when you signed up, but a lot of things have changed since then and we don't grandfather everything that was so long before.

Max Semenik (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think about this for a minute: Who can state what language Photoshop is written in? Only the engineers working on the team know that, and would write about it. But they cannot present the information according to your policies, and cannot correct misinformation according to your policies. Who can verify such information if it were published by another source that may have gotten it wrong (and several have)? Only the engineers on the team could correct that. You have created circular logic that leads to promotion of misinformation, and cannot allow correction of that information by anyone with actual knowledge of the topic. How do we solve that? Ccox@adobe.com (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have another logical inconsistency: anyone is allowed to edit, but you reject information when it is identified as coming from someone with firsthand knowledge about the topic. That means the same person can post identical information without their ID, but cannot post the information with their ID. This, of course, also implies that anyone can post misinformation with or without an ID, and that information cannot be disputed by those with firsthand knowledge if they identify themselves. This logically means that wikipedia will consist of hearsay and not verifiable information, if the current rules are not changed. Ccox@adobe.com (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2014 (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 use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ccox@adobe.com, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

GSK ✉ ✓ 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, I just love that I can't defend myself against a "sockpuppetry" claim because I can't edit the page. All I did was edits in another browser tab while typing a response to the poor editing/reversion done by GSK. I didn't intentionally violate anything, but your system grabbed an ID In one tab and an IP in another.

Your comments on the Photoshop article's talk page removed others' comments, which is not allowed. I could have seen this as an honest mistake, and then you removed those comments a second time as the IP address. As for a vendetta, trust me, this is nowhere near a personal vendetta. GSK ✉ ✓ 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to know beforehand that removing speculation and replacing it with a correct answer was not "allowed", even on the talk page. Even then, your edit should have been to restore the additional (and incorrect) discussion and leave the correction posted with an editorial note about the undesirability of removing other talk. Your current actions scream vendetta, not responsible editing.

You're entitled to your opinion, although for what it's worth, I nominated the sockpuppet investigation for deletion because I came to feel it was unnecessary. If I really was on a personal vendetta, I would be taking any means necessary to ensure you're removed permanently from Wikipedia, and that's not the case. GSK ✉ ✓ 06:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck are you doing, seriously? The block reason SAYS TO CREATE ANOTHER ACCOUNT. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please go re-read WP:BITE. You are seriously harming this encyclopedia by driving away good editors. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the reason for the block, I nominated the SPI for deletion because it was unnecessary. Did you even bother to read the conversation before attacking me? Everyone makes mistakes. The SPI was a mistake I made and I made sure to correct it by marking it for CSD. As a fellow editor, you should know that no one is perfect and that mistakes are made. As for BITE, Ccox is hardly a newcomer as they have been around since 2007 at the earliest, which is more than enough time to familiarize themselves with policy regarding such usernames. Forgive me if I don't share your point of view. GSK ✉ ✓ 06:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]