User talk:Popecol

Welcome!

Hello, Popecol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try 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. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 15:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, Popecol. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been deleting all my posts, despite me adding significant contributions and citations. Of course I am citing my work that is relevant and when it is the only citation available. However, I am also adding a lot of citations from other researchers and other published work but you are deleting those as well! You are overreaching and broadly deleting references and knowledge that is valuable to the community for no reason other than you because I posted it. Popecol (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popecol, Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote yourself or your work, certainly not by spamming your work across dozens of articles using multiple accounts. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am promoting other people's work as well which you are also gleefully deleting as well. So it seems thanks to you I can't post anything at all. Popecol (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Popecol, 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.

MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 23:37, 3 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I have added new and relevant information to all the pages I have posted in. Although I have added my own citations, especially when they are the only ones available, I have also added a lot of references from others. In some cases, where they specifically asked for references. As a researcher, of course I will be contributing to topics that I am knowledgeable in, which is the point of Wikipedia. However, I didn't realize that if I was going to be adding my own references I had to ask by posting on the talk page another contributor could review whether they should add it themselves. I will no longer be adding anything that will be considered self promotion, and instead ask to request an edit by others if I think it can be of value. From now on I will post to correct and add new knowledge and include only references from other researchers. I want to use my expert knowledge to contribute to Wikipedia and its goals. Please let me know what are the next steps I can take to be an expert editor for Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

None of this addresses your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. If you continue acting like this, you'll end up banned by the community under WP:3X, so now's the time to step back and consider if you wish to start taking a more ethical approach here. Yamla (talk) 11:20, 6 May 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.

So what can I do to be reinstated? I wish to delete all my accounts and just have one which I can contribute to. Popecol (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your original account, please. And note, accounts cannot be deleted. They can, however, be abandoned. --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So will I be able to use my original account DrJoseV again? Following all of Wikipedia rules of course? Popecol (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you make an unblock request and it's granted, yes. --Yamla (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit saddened to see that you completely failed to address the socking; we don't have much reason to accept your promises as long as you evade the fact that you socked to include references to your own publications from a number of accounts. As Yamla says, any unblock request that has a chance of success must come from the original account (User talk:DrJoseV), and must address both problem: the self-promotion and the socking. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had an account with my name but decided it would be best to be anonymous so I created another account. I would forget my accounts when I would sign out or forget my password so would create others. I probably have others besides the ones cited that I forgot about. I also wasn't sure how to use wikipedia and wouldn't know I had messages. I only realized later one when I found that my posts were deleted. However, I understand now the importance of socking and how it affects wikipedia. Popecol (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]