User talk:Adamasher1

June 2018

Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Identity verification service have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Identity verification service. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Identity verification service, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 17:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Kuru (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account appears to be used solely for adding promotional and unsourced material. The one link you added was a blog, which is not a reliable source. You also copied your addition directly from that blog, creating a copyright issue. You will need to address this behavior and your future intentions in any unblock request. Kuru (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuftipro.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.Shuftipro.com

Unblock

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).

Adamasher1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't had idea that it was a blog post and I am apologizing for this behavior. Kindly allow me to continue Adamasher1 (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2018 (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.

That covers the poor source, but it ignores the actual block reason, which is that "This account appears to be used solely for adding promotional and unsourced material", and it ignores your copyright violations. Please address those too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Going through this editor's contributions, I examined six or seven selected at random and every one was a copyright violation - that is, copied directly from another site where it was not published with a suitable license. I have, therefore, rev-deleted every contribution (which had all been reverted anyway) as a precaution. Adamasher1, violating copyright is not only against Wikipedia policy, it is also illegal and could get Wikipedia into trouble. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Adamasher1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I clearly understand why I was blocked, On my part I was just mentioning why KYC with AI should be used as it is much safer for user and I have named two competitor companies without being biased. Please review my request and unblock me. This time round I expect a calm reply

Decline reason:

Naming competitor companies is not sufficient. Nor have you addressed your violations of WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE, which have placed Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Yamla (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2018 (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.

Adam, can you explain why as recently as 11 July you were adding promotional links to articles related to identity and KYC despite several warnings on your talk page asking you to stop using Wikipedia for promotion? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on "mentioning why KYC with AI should be used as it is much safer for use", that is promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and covers subjects from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a review site and does not make such recommendations. Also, as well as needing to address all of the problems with your editing, please also disclose any personal connection you have with any of the subjects you have edited. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Adamasher1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am an E-KYC researcher myself and that's why I know that AI is changing KYC process completely and effectively. Talking about the connection with other companies, I am a neutral person having no link with any of the website or company. From now on I will try to be careful and my edits wont show any biased content at all. Please unblock me as I want to be a useful resource for Wikipedia community. Adamasher1 (talk) 9:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline of duplicate request. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:56, 14 July 2018 (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.

You still have not even mentioned your multiple copyright violations. I think you need to explain Wikipedia's copyright policy in your own words, make it clear how you broke it (and the applicable law), and make a convincing case that you will not do the same again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Adamasher1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit that it was copied from a website and that is a copyright violation of Wikipedia and I apologise for it. Please unblock me it wont happen again and from now on I wont post stuff that is biased and will post neutral ideas only. As I mentioned earlier, I want to be reliable resource for Wikipedia. This time round I expect a positive replyAdamasher1 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You didn't answer the questions posed above. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2018 (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.

.

I think we are passed the point of WP:IDHT now, so I have revoked talk page access from this user. Another admin will be along to review the unblock request, shortly. If they decline, that leaves you with WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin I have gone ahead and procedurally declined the unblock request in the above section as to only have one active review. Please still consider its rationale, however, in decision making. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Adamasher1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22080 was submitted on Jul 16, 2018 07:33:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Adamasher1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22096 was submitted on Jul 17, 2018 12:37:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]