User talk:MkNbTrD0086

Welcome!

Hi MkNbTrD0086! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Ahmetlii (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm Ixocactus. Your recent edit(s) to the page Matt Fraser (psychic) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 2020

I usually endeavour to WP:AGF MkNbTrD0086, but considering you are an WP:SPA created last month, with a repetitive need to push your demands so far as creating a DRN for Fraser, I sincerely apologise in advance but now have to ask - Are you in any way associated with the subject Matt Fraser (psychic), the TV show, or any of his family or associates? On the DRN when Rp2006 said you were WP:SPA he was correct, when you replied "I am not a single purpose user", that is not the case. CatCafe (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I took this to DRN because I read up on wikipedia guidelines that it is not right to make repetitive reverts to the article and WP:DR was the right process. There it guided me on how to open a dispute on content if there is no agreement on talk page. I have already responded to you on the dispute discussion that I am not related to Fraser. You sincerely do not need to accuse me like this again as you can have surety from my response. I do watch TV and read up on various topics, obviously I will edit the topics in which I get an interest. Other than that, I will appreciate if you come up with logic comments and discuss with me, but if accusations is what you have, I will not be inclined to respond to you. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hi MkNbTrD0086! I just thought I'd stop by with a couple of quick comments. I saw your post before, and I agree that the situation with BJackJS was odd. However, their account is older than the dispute request, so I don't think that there is a connection. My guess is that they're either a new or returing editor that is genuinely trying to help. There's always a chance of being wrong, but I'm inclined to assume good faith until things are proven otherwise, and the case didn't progress far enough for that to happen. :) To be honest, I don't think the request was going to be picked up if BJackJS hadn't volunteered. Unfortunately, my impression of the overall DR process is generally poor - I hoped that it would have worked, and I would have taken part in good faith, but if you look at the past cases you'll get an idea of the problems the DR process faces. In this case it was derailed, so it ended up being moot, but it is not one of the better approaches when people have firm opinions. At any rate, the ony thing to do with Matt Fraser is to be patient. Sometimes these things sort themselves out, sometimes we can bring it about more directly, but either way unless it is a clear policy violation I try not to push too hard, as change is best handled through consensus, and that can take a while to form and works best if taken slowly. - Bilby (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby! Thank you for your good faith. I saw that the user account is another month older. And that BJackJS started his wikipedia editing before the dispute started on the dispute resolution noticeboard but the account started its first edits after the actual dispute on talk page had started. So that is what I found a bit odd. Anyway, they did not do bad (neither there was any chance for that to happen) as the dispute was closed so you are right, it is moot. I followed where the wikipedia DR process lead me and unfortunately it was derailed with ad hominem arguments only. I hope editors other than the ones who have been closely maintaining this article will be able to form an independent consensus eventually. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Fraser (psychic), you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion it is promotion. I was just doing what I've seen on hundreds of other articles. Many of them have similar sections so why not here? And this article is completely biased and imbalanced. As a new not so active editor, I am only learning as I go along and it is never my intention to disrupt any article. So my apologies. Even Jimmy Wales article has a "promotional" section full of his works - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Distinctions MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, MkNbTrD0086. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have answered this numerously. I know we are all volunteers here but it would have been nice if you had checked the talk page and the DRN before placing this tag on my talk page. Why so quick to assume? I like EVERY editor here has to start somewhere, don't I? And as I'm seeing it is becoming very difficult to even add a slight edit to that particular article or similar.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Matt_Fraser_(psychic)#Lead

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_196#Matt_Fraser_(psychic)

The dispute got closed as it was derailed. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any edits by MkNbTrD0086 to Parapsychology. Am I just not seeing them? - Bilby (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: His edits have been promoting a TV psychic, which would fall under parapsychology. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. So when you wrote "parapsychology", you actually meant "Matt Fraser". That makes more sense. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: - "His" edits? "promoting"? I tried to add some tv and media content ONCE to an already existing tv and media section. Relax yourself. You are making some assumptions there. Let's also assume that I'm Frosty the Snowman and the world is flat. MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]