User talk:Marina1banch

General sanctions alert

Please read this notification carefully, as it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Retimuko (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Marina1banch. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page VentureBeat, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#VentureBeat.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Uber article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding that you only use information from, and references to social.techcrunch.com in a way that may be indicative of paid editing. The thread is "User:Marina1banch Linkspam/Paid editing? Seeking guidance". Thank you.--Averell (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to respond to this. Communication is required on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.

Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 15 June 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).

Marina1banch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, Techcrunch was not the only source I used for submitting the edits, however, my major source was Techcrunch and I don't deny it. The reason I used it is that Techcrunch is a convenient source for searching for relevant news which could be useful for submitting on Wikipedia. I definitely do not have intention to promote Techcrunch and it is not written anywhere that I could not use one source for submitting my edits. I got the first alert about me violating policy of Wikipedia in Friday and I was okay with this as it's not too complicated for me to use other sources for submitting the edits (although in most cases Techcrunch is the primary source). I haven't made any edits since Friday and today I get the notification that I'm blocked, although there's no proof I was advertising Techcrunch except the one that I mentioned it as a source. I was growing my account and got more than 100 edits and now it is banned because of your imperfect system of identifying spammers! So I would kindly ask to unblock my account as there's not reason for me not to continue submitting edits (with various sources).

Decline reason:

You need to address the concerns raised at WP:AN, shown above. Specifically, what is your relationship with Techcrunch, what is your relationship with previous blocked editors, you need to address concerns around WP:COI, and you need to address the problem that the citations you are adding are frequently inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 18 June 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).

Marina1banch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not connected with anyone from Techcrunch at all and I don't know anyone from previously blocked editors. And I don't understand why added citations where inappropriate.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:21, 3 July 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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marina1banch. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]