User talk:Xpitfire

Welcome!

Hello, Xpitfire, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Xpitfire, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 23:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Xpitfire

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Xpitfire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 23:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I wrote the page about myself and the company as well as research I conduct. All content is backed by my research work, papers, websites, online videos, etc. --Xpitfire (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a good place to write about yourself, your company, or your research, as these are all subjects with which you have a conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography, which explains why this type of editing is strongly discouraged. If you still want to edit about your company, you are considered a paid editor by Wikipedia's definition and are required to make a paid-contribution disclosure, which is explained on Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I am a renown researcher and want to present the research work I have been conducting the last 5 years in a condensed format. --Xpitfire (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a web post on which you talk about how great you or your research are. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to edit the parts you feel are promotional. So far I have only received unsubstantiated claims of self-promotion without a proper review what addresses the places I need to change. I see it the way that I listed the facts that have happened. Going by the current logic one should also Gary Marcus wikipedia page because his believe and books are promoted there as well as other research pages. Xpitfire (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marius-Constantin Dinu moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Marius-Constantin Dinu. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Software 3.0

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 Draft:Software 3.0, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page.

Deb (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Marius-Constantin Dinu has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Marius-Constantin Dinu. Thanks! Deb (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Marius-Constantin Dinu

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 Draft:Marius-Constantin Dinu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Codename AD ^talk 14:04, 6 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am a member and supporter of Wikipedia for 11 years now, financially through donations as well as morally, and even though I only seldomly make small edits or contributions to existing pages, I have never abused my position nor have I done anything in bad faith. I recently tried to add a new page about Marius-Constantin Dinu, and by accident because of being still relatively inexperienced with creating new pages, added it in association with my own username page :Xpitfire, which I got flagged for speedy deletion because of self-promotion. I did not realize that immediately and contested the deletion. When I realized the mistake, I created a new page with Draft:Marius-Constantin Dinu and added the content there. Meanwhile, user Deb started accusing my username and states that I have requested for self-promotion and inappropriate username usage and flagged my account to be blocked. I respectfully disagree, since the username is neither tied to any organization, promotional content nor inappropriate in nature, and all added content about Marius-Constantin Dinu is factional and based on sources which I referenced thoroughly. My goal is only to add 3 factual pages on Wikipedia about Marius-Constantin Dinu, Software 3.0 and ExtensityAI which are all entities that have contributed in the research on artificial general intelligence. All added pages I believe to have been added in good faith, with an objective perspective on the matter, without trying to self-promote any account. Should this not be enough, I am also willing to reiterate and receive a proper review on what needs to be changed to represent the content more properly. However, I also want to express the deeply frustrating experience throughout this process, especially with users Deb, Deepfriedokra‬ and Leonidlednev‬, since they have not been helpful, and rather ridiculing my work to say the least, here is a quote: 'Hugely self-promotional draft by someone who considers himself a "renown researcher".' I always respected the work of Wikipedia, and I am disappointed to see such low standards applied in comments and discussions. Instead of correcting me for my mistakes and pointing me in the right direction to improve, people are trash talking about one's comments and flagging for user blockage to quickly deviate responsibility to deal with someone inexperienced. I ask you again kindly to review my blockage and unblock my account such that I can re-iterate on my original contribution. Xpitfire (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't get to write about ourselves or our own research on Wikipedia. It's that simple. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:28, 6 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

@jpgordan: I was not aware that one cannot factually and neutrally write about one's own research. And I will not do so again. However, how can I now get back my original account before this incident? I feel this entire procedure and punishment is unproportionate to the mistake I have done. I got indefinitely banned to edit. I would have understood it if it was a warning and for some temporary horizon like a day or week. But to get banned indefinitely for a mistake is not comprehensible to me. Xpitfire (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption to Wikipedia. The block can be removed when you demonstrate you understand the issues that led to the block; indefinite does not mean "permanent", it means "until the user convinces an admin to remove the block". Putting an end date on the block does nothing to accomplish that as you could just wait it out without demonstrating your understanding. You have said you won't write about your research, which is fine, but you now need to tell us what edits you will make instead, as if you don't intend to make edits, there is no need to remove the block as blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (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.

Please place new posts below older posts so they stay in order. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You say "My goal is only to add 3 factual pages on Wikipedia about Marius-Constantin Dinu, Software 3.0 and ExtensityAI which are all entities that have contributed in the research on artificial general intelligence." This suggests that you created a Wikipedia user ID purely in order to create articles on three topics with which you have a direct connection. You haven't yet declared your conflict of interest on your user page either. The only one of your drafts that might be acceptable, as far as I can see, is Draft:Software 3.0, which is why I didn't delete it. In addition, you have to specify a new username in order to have the block lifted. Instead of following the instructions for an effective appeal, you chose to bad-mouth three administrators who were enforcing the guidelines by removing promotional content. I can see that you are handicapped by your lack of fluency in English, but you are intelligent enough to read the guidelines and follow them. Please do so if you want to edit again in the future. Deb (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]