User talk:R1D1
Welcome!
|
Conflict of interest?
[edit]
Hello, R1D1. 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 COI 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 COI 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 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Gamorithm, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Moshe Sipper moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Moshe Sipper, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Gamorithm
[edit]
Hello, R1D1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gamorithm".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Moshe Sipper
[edit]Hello, R1D1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Moshe Sipper".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 18:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Moshe Sipper
[edit]
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 Moshe Sipper, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
- It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.moshesipper.com/. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. TAXIDICAE💰 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
[edit]Hello R1D1. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:R1D1. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=R1D1|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. TAXIDICAE💰 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
R1D1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Sir or Madam, I'm not sure why I've been blocked, I'm not very conversant with wiki, took me 2 hours to compose the entry just to have it deleted. I respectfully ask to be unblocked. If the entry is not wanted so be it. I thought it's OK to do my researcher page... Guess not :-) Note that I'm neither a company nor a paid editor nor anything of the sort, just a bona fide academic trying to compose a researcher page. I'd love be able to continue editing (though not the deleted page...) Thank you! Sincerely, R1D1 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Editor has agreed to stop promotional activities; unblocking contingent on this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
What is your connection or association with Moshe Sipper? 331dot (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am he -- I didn't know I'm not allowed to do my researcher page (I'm not promoting a product or being paid..) -- a few years ago I did a draft, got comments that were just about missing links, refs. Just got to them now...Anyway, I see it's not allowed, would be nice to lift the block though. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by R1D1 (talk • contribs)
- It's not just the fact that you attempted to write an autobiographical article(which, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged); you also posted links to your website. Please review conflict of interest and explain how your future edits will be consistent with that policy. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked into it and I realize now that autobiographical is discouraged... Re. link to website -- most researcher pages I've seen have that. I've asked a colleague if she'd graciously do a short entry about me, she said yes :-) No more AUTO-biography... Future edits will not be about me anymore. Thanks, I hope to get the block lifted.
- That's not what I mean regarding links- you added links to your website to articles. That is a conflict of interest and should not be done without discussion. Again, please review that policy and tell how your edits will be consistent with it.
- You colleague will need to declare a conflict of interest herself. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."
Yup duly noted. Future edits will be in accordance with this policy. Thank you. R1D1 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please describe how you will do that- many people here say they will follow policies but don't do so. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
As I said, I simply will avoid editing anything relating to my own work. I'll focus on entries dealing with research in general, not mine. R1D1 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Given that you have agreed to stop the promotional activities, I have unblocked you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. R1D1 (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
R1D1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
huh? what multiple accounts?! --
Decline reason:
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.
R1D1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I cannot prove what I am not. This is unjust. R1D1 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
R1D1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So Presumption of innocence replaced by Show trial. Nice. Please unblock to at least allow retirement of this account. I no longer wish to be part of this. R1D1 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No grounds for appeal provided. Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
{{retired}}
{{db-u1|rationale=This whole discussion is unjust. Presumption of innocence has been lost. I wish to remove myself entirely from this platform.}}
- You're not retired, you're blocked. User talk pages are not deleted. Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
{{retired}} {{db-u1|rationale=This whole discussion is unfair. You condemn at whim. Way to go.}}
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
UTRS 42880
[edit]UTRS appeal #42880 has been declined.
What you describe is sockpupperty by way of proxy.
This is not a court of law or part of any system of jurisprudence.
You were unblocked after promising not to write about yourself and then induced others to do so.
Wikipedia is not a court of law. It is an encyclopedia. Blocks are not punishment. They are made to stop disruption. You disrupted Wikipedia by repeatedly writing about yourself and then by causing others to write about you. Your many unblock requests are not only clichéic and disruptive, they avoid addressing the reasons for your block. Given the depths to which you sank to disrupt Wikipedia, you would need to make a convincing case that you would not cause further disruption and that you would edit constructively. You have not done that. You have further demonstrated the lengths to which you are you are willing to go to disrupt this project. This request is declined. Please (re)read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) Having read all you your unblock requests, the inescapable conclusion is that allowing you access to UTRS will only allow you to cause further disruption. You are therefore banned from UTRS for six months.
--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
At first, I was upset. The guy is not a ship and hasn’t sunk. Nobody “induced” me. And while some people love being slurred with “sock” and “puppet”, I’m not one of them (weird, I know).
Though not even a wiki-newcomer, it took me all of two minutes to find some nice policies that may have gone with the wind ⛵: Civility, No personal attacks, Please do not bite the newcomers.
But upon re-reading the diatribe I found it so Kafkaesque as to actually be hilarious. So eventually I just found myself LOL 😂 🤣
Ms. 🧦
PS. I love okra…