User talk:Ttflybless

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm George8211. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mark T. Williams without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —George8211 / T 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have an entire section of external links in Mark T. Williams, sorry. See WP:EL. A lot of those articles are already included as citations in the text in any case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't remove large chunks of sourced information without discussing why in the talk page first. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've removed the lists of articles and presentations from Mark T. Williams as Wikipedia biographies generally aren't meant to have lists like that in. —George8211 / T 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add the lists of articles and presentations by Mark T. Williams without an appropriate explanation. Thank you. —George8211 / T 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mark T. Williams. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 6 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was editing based on facts and on the person's behalf. I deleted the block concerning Bitcoin because they are all opinion but not facts; I add back the articles because that's the most important part of a professor's achievements, please allow me to finish the editing

Decline reason:

I think first you need to respond to the comments and warnings that were posted here before you were blocked; ignoring warning messages about your editing practices is a good way to get us to stop your editing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:33, 6 August 2015 (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.

Note that adding an entire section of external links is not acceptable, nor is replacing existing references with other links. That's the only thing you've done to the article so far, so if that's what you want to do if you're unblocked then there's no point in unblocking you. Further, you have a now-declared conflict of interest, which means you should be suggesting changes in the article's talk page, not making them yourself. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:45, 6 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I edit the page is based on Mark's intention. Over the years, his wiki page has been edited a lot and doesn't represents his background thoroughly. 1. I deleted the Bitcoin paragraph because it reflects a lot of opinions which doesn't represent facts 2. I add back the articles paragraph (which was on the wiki last year, I don't know why it got deleted) because it is an important part that can represent a professor's achievement and other academic workers can refer to these articles. It's very helpful and necessary to add it back. 3. This is the first time i edited the wiki page. I just registered yesterday, so I am really not familiar with those rules. Sorry that i bring trouble to your work. I re-edit the page because i didn't know i have received the warning. from now on i will stick to the rules. 4. I really need to finish editing the wiki page based on Mark's factual background as soon as possible. Please comment and i will provide all the information you need. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, your description of events does not entirely square with what I see. For example, you say "I deleted the Bitcoin paragraph because it reflects a lot of opinions which doesn't represent facts". However, it contained reliably sourced information about predictions that Williams made: what he predicted is question of fact, not opinion. If you mean that the opinions Williams expressed in the event turned out to not "represent facts", then that is itself a relevant fact about him. I give that one example, but it is clear that the substantial purpose of most of your editing is to change the article to present Williams in a better light, both by addition of promotional content and by removal of content unfavourable to him. Williams does not own the Wikipedia article about him, and he has no right to attempt to turn it into a piece which presents the view of him which he himself wishes to present to the world, whether by editing the article himself or by getting someone else to edit it on his behalf. Since you have stated that you are editing on his behalf, you should avoid editing the article. If there are factual corrections or updates that you know of, you can suggest them on the article's talk page, so that a neutral, impartial, editor can assess them and decide whether to make your suggested changes. There is no question of unblocking you in order to enable you to continue to try to turn the article into a piece promoting Williams's own view of himself: he can either use a social networking site or set up a web site of his own if he wishes to do that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

reply the new comment. I didn't get what you said about external links. I just want to add back the "article" section which was originally on the wiki page last year and update it with a new article published 2015. I didn't see the reason why article section should be deleted

Decline reason:

See above. (It is actually not helpful to have two unblock requests open at once: further comments can be added to the page without posting a second unblock request.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please read my lines carefully before.I get your part that you think the bitcoin part is necessary. However the "articles" section was originally on the wiki site before August 4. 2015. Can you give me a reasonable reason why deleting that part? What I want to appeal is to simply add back that "Article" session, which is a necessary and factual part not doing any promotion at all. The current wiki page is not complete. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; block has expired. Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (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.

Wikipedia does not seek to serve as an index to the works of people who are subjects of its articles. If you can suggest a reason for including such an extensive list of publications, other than a desire to make his work more publicly visible, i.e. promoting it, then I will be interested to see what that reason is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|this is another professor's wiki page. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Roger_Lowenstein. Is that wiki has a double standard concerning all the rules? why this page has all those articles and external links. I reedit the page based on the above link. I thought the wiki is for people to get a factual and complete idea about a thing or a person. I don't think putting a professor's articles is a promotion. This is for people see the professor's area of research if they are interested. But not promoting anything.}}

I have commented out the above unblock request as there is already an active request on the page. First off, there only being ~1000 active admins watching over almost 5 million articles means that arguing that page X should be allowed because article Y exists is meaningless, since the current status quo is a logistical nightmare. Indeed, many pages that should be deleted aren't solely because they haven't been brought to administrators' attention. Second, you don't need a list of all his published works to explain his area of expertise - just stating it and backing it up with a reliable source or two is good enough. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Ttflybless. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]