User talk:Jmoskowitz

if you put something, anything on your user page, then it will become a blue link rather than a red one. My posting here will turn your user talk page into a blue link. You can post the article in question on wikipedia yourself, you do not have to submit it to anyone. When that article gets posted you can add the subject of the article to various lists, articles, etc. But you need to have an article first. Regardless of who posts the article it will be scrutinized for the notability of the subject. Good luck. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Always sign your messages to me or anywhere else on wikipedia with four of these ~ (top key, far left) . To not do so is considered to be rude or lazy or selfish and sets you apart as someone that many won't want to help. Carptrash (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2013

Also, if the article that you are intending to publish has anything to do with J Moskowitz Glass, I'd start over with another user name. Carptrash (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Perless.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jmoskowitz. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Your addition to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Perless has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. TreyGeek (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perless Article

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robert_Perless I have done some editorial work on the page. It needs more information about the body of work through addition of verifiable information. Perless is a notable person but this will not get the article published unless there is information backed up by references from independent review. You have a long list of items. You should be able to find some good information. The references do not need to be online just from published reliable sources. Kanuk (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perless References

In the section with the list of articles and reviews you do not need Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). because you have listed the reference. the ref tags are meant to be used when you put a reference in the body of the text so as to make a footnote. It is not necessary to footnote the sources in the list of articles and reviews, it will stand on its own.Kanuk (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to Perless

You have the correct idea. Put it in your own words and then use the ref to make a footnote. Take a look at what I have done and you will get the process and idea. The former reviewers wrote about a laundry list. the lists are ok but there needs to be something about the artists work that is notable. Perless is Notable, you just have to demonstrate that fact.Kanuk (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Perless.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perless revisions and re-post to the Articles for Submission

I see that one of the other editors declined this article. This is about a person who deserves to have an article. What I will do is put it under review. In that place you can continue to work on it and I will do some editorial work on it so that it will be an article that is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. When is is sufficiently reworked then I will take the step of publishing the article. Kanuk (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perless article For Review

I have taken it out of the Queue and put it in the Reviewing list. If you go to the site you can continue to edit the article. I am going to work on it also.

This is where you will find it http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Robert_Perless

There needs to me more information in the article about the subjects contribution to the Kinetic Art field. You will see my comments on the page. There is still a good deal of work to do. I found a reference to an article that he wrote. It would be great if we could find more. A biography that is not merely a newspaper interview would also help. Since it is Kinetic Art perhaps some utube videos of the art in action.

Kanuk (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work on editing this page. There still need to be citations in the first couple of paragraphs concerning his life and artworks. You need to add these references in order to address the Reliability and No Original Research issues with this article. I have done pretty much what I can do to work on this. Keep me posted if you make updates. Thanks

Kanuk (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the information available to me that is in the articles that you have cited. It needs more explanation of the work that he has done and citations. If you put in the citations I will work on them to make sure they are properly done. I would like to see this published but it is still not quite ready. Statements need back up citations. Perhaps I can put in some citation notes so you can see where they are needed. This will get done, just needs some more work.Kanuk (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Robert Perless, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kanuk (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page. I put in some ^{[citation needed]} notes. Now that it is published you should consider which categories should be added in the category list. Be sure you have not used copyright material, there was a warning on this page already. Kanuk (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Satellite. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Text messaging. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did with this edit to Amber alert. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. →Emadix ©^talk 13:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reply - Sorry - I was unaware of this rule. We will submit an article instead so we can link internally instead of externally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoskowitz (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that promotional articles are subject to deletion under speedy deletion criterion G11. Make sure you go through WP:SPAM before you submit the article. Thanks. →Emadix ©^talk 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reply - Thank you. We will check our article with WP:SPAM prior to submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoskowitz (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jmoskowitz, what do you mean with "our article"? If you are working for SEEMS, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. Your current article is fairly promotional: "the remotest of areas can be reliably alerted", "all the functionality of the VOCAL-ONE in a compact portable device".– Thjarkur (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Satellite Enhanced Emergency Messaging System

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Satellite Enhanced Emergency Messaging System, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 22:07, 20 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Originally I incorrectly and without clear understanding, posted external links to the satellite service. They were removed and I was duly scolded. Understanding the error a page was created instead. That page was flagged for speedy deletion because it sounded too promotional. So the page was totally rewritten to be more encyclopedic as requested. At that point an editor complained about the page be orphan. So I placed links to the page in what I thought was appropreate places such as the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System which this is part of. On the talk page responding to the speedy deletion, I reported that the page was now similar in form to the SPOT Satellite Messenger page which is not flagged as promotional. So I followed all the suggestions of the editors reviewing thing yet now I have been blocked and my page removed. I think I am being punished for my original error in posting links which I learned was incorrect and I addressed. I followed each of the items editors requested since that original blunder. I also know there was a request for citations and we explained in the speedy deletion talk page they will be coming in November 2019 as media articles will be published then. So we added a missing citations tag onto the page as a placeholder. I feel I am being punished for the original error and the efforts to address everything since then have not been considered. The material I have written about is not meant to be promotional and was redone to eliminate this just like to SPOT Satellite Messenger which has been on Wikipedia for some time. This is am important service introduced to FEMA and directors of emergency services across the United States, and would be of interest the readers learning about communications alternatives. Please unblock me as I am following just what each editor has reqquested. Please restore the information page Satellite Enhanced Emergency Messaging System. Thank you for reconsideration. Jmoskowitz (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is not clear where you have disclosed your paid conflict of interest, which means your edits were in breach of the Terms of Use that you agreed to when you created an account. If you have no interest in editing other than to write about your company, you will not be unblocked. In order to be unblocked, you will need to agree to avoid writing about SEEMS or related topics. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:18, 21 October 2019 (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.

It was not clear if the reason had to follow the unblock message or was to be embedded in it. So I have done both.

Originally I incorrectly and without clear understanding, posted external links to the satellite service. They were removed and I was duly scolded. Understanding the error a page was created instead. That page was flagged for speedy deletion because it sounded too promotional. So the page was totally rewritten to be more encyclopedic as requested. At that point an editor complained about the page be orphan. So I placed links to the page in what I thought was appropreate places such as the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System which this is part of.

On the talk page responding to the speedy deletion, I reported that the page was now similar in form to the SPOT Satellite Messenger page which is not flagged as promotional.

So I followed all the suggestions of the editors reviewing thing yet now I have been blocked and my page removed.

I think I am being punished for my original error in posting links which I learned was incorrect and I addressed. I followed each of the items editors requested since that original blunder. I also know there was a request for citations and we explained in the speedy deletion talk page they will be coming in November 2019 as media articles will be published then. So we added a missing citations tag onto the page as a placeholder.

I feel I am being punished for the original error and the efforts to address everything since then have not been considered.

The material I have written about is not meant to be promotional and was redone to eliminate this just like to SPOT Satellite Messenger which has been on Wikipedia for some time. This is am important service introduced to FEMA and directors of emergency services across the United States, and would be of interest the readers learning about communications alternatives.

Please unblock me as I am following just what each editor has reqquested. Please restore the information page Satellite Enhanced Emergency Messaging System.

Thank you for reconsideration.

Jmoskowitz (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

After 10+ years on Wikipedia, I would like my account restored and unblocked. I have reviewed the terms of service, paid contributions, and conflict of interest information. I will not edit articles regarding SEEMS or related topics. Jmoskowitz (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to what was written above, I still have concerns over the use of "we" and "our", which lends increased support to the idea that this is an undisclosed paid editing account (and therefore an account with a conflict of interest in its editing) and that this account is operated by more than one person. If this is in fact not the case, then why the coninued use of "we" and "our" in replies? Finally, I have seen no edits made to bring this page in line with either Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Accordingly, for the time being, the block stands. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 22 October 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

i do not understand the comment just posted regarding the use of we and our. This has been my account for 11 years. I was specifically asked not to post anything regarding SEEMS and I agreed not to do so, but this last unblock response went back to conflict of interest areas related to just what I was asked not to post about. Since I agreed i don't understand why conflict of interest has to do with what I was asked to back off from, is being revisited. This is my account. I am not a paid contributer. I have a marketing background so if we or our was introduced somewhere (I don;t even recall that) it is only from such a background. I was asked by an editor to make the original page encyclopedic which I had done. This was for general interst in what I thought is an important new service but the page vwas still rejected. So being asked to just back off, I have agreed, yet this is going back and revisiting what I already agreed to. So once again i ask for my long time account to be unblocked as i have agreed to what i was asked. Jmoskowitz (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2019 (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.

I cannot review this appeal as I have already declined another request above, but I will point out for the benefit of reviewing administrators that you have barely made a single edit in your six years on the site that did not relate to a topic with which you have a conflict of interest. The only non-COI edits I can find in your entire editing history are the ones you made to List of fictional computers and to WP:REFUND (and I think the request for undeletion was a misclick). Other than that, you have only ever written in areas where you have a COI. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution

...concerning your repeated unblock requests. You're on your third request; if it is declined then its likely that your block will either evolve into a ban or that the declining admin will revoke talk page access. Therefore, if you have more to say or more you wish for an admin to consider, you would do well to place it here now so it can be reviewed when and if the time comes. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:49, 29 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would take exception to the statement placed by Admin Yunshui stating that I hardly ever post anything that does not a have conflict of interest. The conflict of interest definition of Wikipedia specifically says not to post things which are promoting your own interests perhaps for some tyoe of gain as opposed to providing encylopedic information. Much time was spent a while ago providing informaiton regarding a leading kinetic artist and his works. Why this administrator is placing this in the catagory of a conflict of interests is unclear to me. The page was written to memorialize the work of this world renown artist who otherwise had not appeared in Wikipedia and was recognized by his colleagues in his field. Yes I knew of his works and it was with that knowledge that I could contribute a meaningful addition to Wikipedia. It is not a conflict of interests to share ones own knowledge for no personal gain. With regard to the last set of additions I have repeatedly agreed to abide by the requests of several editors to not post on the subject of the Satellite Messaging system as I was asked. Yet when agreeing to those terms, instead of restoring my priviledges, the adminisntrators continued to return to the subject for which I agreed not to post and contimnued to admonish me. I udnerstood what was requested. Agreed to abide by the terms but not given a chance to have my account restored. So regardless to agreeing to what was asked, I have not been given a chance to even live by what was requested to follow. I have requested to have my account unblocked several times because none of the administrators are acknowleging my agreements to the terms they have stated and instead keep returning to the original condition to which I was admonished. I addressed these concerns yet the they are not being accepted and we keep revisiting the original concern. I agreed to abide by the terms administrators have defined.Jmoskowitz (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Bad-faith unblock request, where you attempt to hide the fact that this artist is your business partner. This continued dishonestly leads me to strongly endorse your block. Yamla (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2019 (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.

Robert Perless, the "leading kinetic artist" to whom you refer, also happens to be your business partner. I note that you have studiously avoided mentioning that conflict of interest, in the same way that you have tiptoed around mentioning your business interest in SEEMS. Once again, I cannot decline this appeal as I have done so once before, but I would strongly recommend that the reviewing administrator does so, since you clearly have no intention of being honest with us about your conflicts of interest. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock | reason= After being blocked for more than a year I would like to request to be unblocked. I understand why I was blocked and will adhere to requirements. }

Jmoskowitz (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I submitted on unblock request on 12 Dec 2020 and received no reply. I think I formatted that unblock request incorrectly - After being blocked for more than a year I would like to request to be unblocked. I understand why I was blocked and will adhere to requirements. Jmoskowitz (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (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.

Indefinite blocks are not lifted due to the mere passage of time. For any unblock request you make to be considered, you would need to fully address the reasons for your block and make a convincing case that they would not recur. "I understand why I was blocked and will adhere to requirements" does not do that - considering your past dishonesty, it will take significantly more than that to re-establish the required level of trust. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did state in my request that I understood why I have been blocked and will adhere to requirements. But I will further agree not to continue to cause damage or distruction and agree only to make useful contributions to Wikipedia

Decline reason:

You've done nothing but copy-paste the instructions back at us. This is not a convincing argument. This is like taking a university exam and answering every question with "trust me, I know the answer to this question". Instead of saying "I understand why I have been blocked", explain it to us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2021 (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.