User talk:Cbelli92

Welcome!

Hello Cbelli92! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

September 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Artists Anonymous has been reverted.
Your edit here to Artists Anonymous was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/artistsanonymousartistsanonymous/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello Cbelli92. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Artists Anonymous, 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 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 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:Cbelli92. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cbelli92|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. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am NOT being paid for the edit!!! I am simply someone who knows the people enough to put this online. Cbelli92 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, you're not employed by them or paid by them? Thank you for your reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not i have known them since 2015 and are very good friends. not many people know the ins and outs of their work first hand and the history. thanks Cbelli92 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cbelli92. 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.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unblock me please!

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).

Cbelli92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am NOT a sockpuppet?? I am helping voluntarily my friend's artists family members(also my friends) to manage their artist wikipedia page (Artists Anonymous) because they do not want to deal with what we seem to be dealing with now and also too humble to edit their content - they simply want their content to be accurate and so do I because what Wikipedia has on them is inaccurate to art history and to their hardworking professional life to not be able to be Wikireaders-worthy and have actual content there that an Encyclopedia SHOULD have. Happy to further send you human verification ID - happy to email in my ID next to my face, so will TazioLinse we can take a picture outside our friend(s) studio space, Cbelli92 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is is indeed sock puppetry- more specifically meat puppetry. The other account made edits or you wouldn't have been blocked. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 21 May 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.

how to post an edit on a page that needs edit

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).

Cbelli92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, please advise as to how I can pass on a factually accurate final edit to a page, without causing more disruptions to the wikipedia system, as I would like to submit the version thats been deleted due to my apparent meatpuppetry, which is completely untrue, seeing as I did not create my friend's account nor asked him to upload for me. Despite being blocked, it is not about me, but about my friends' page that deserves a factual and proper edit. Ta Cbelli92 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:MEAT and WP:COI. Yamla (talk) 22:08, 23 May 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.

unblock: please reply Cbelli92 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

helpme: with this issue Cbelli92 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2024 (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).

Cbelli92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was honestly not aware that my editing of my friend's artist page, as well as collaborating with another friend of mine to edit the page jointly was considered sock puppeting, in fact, i really did not even know what we were doing was considered wrong. as we were just ensuring that all facts were accurate. my friend no longer uses his wikipage anymore because of this, i sincerely ask that my profile is re-established so i can appropriately submit accurate information one time only to my friend's page and that will be the end of my edits. i really did not intend to do anything 'unlawful' and as such i simply ask to have my profile unblocked as it was an honest mistake. I do not know what more to say, i am simply using my free time to help wikipedia gain accurate information on a friend i know well and their existing wikipedia page. thank you. Celine Belli Cbelli92 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:31, 19 June 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.

You appear to have some misconceptions. No "final edits" are made to an article; it's not "their" page to be managed and even if you made edits, anyone else can choose to edit it in ways they may not approve of, or nominate it for deletion for not meeting notability guidelines. And "accurate information" can not simply be supplied by you; information is supposed to be sourced to reliable, vetted sources, such as newspapers, peer-reviewed academic journals, news reporting, and the like. Wikipedia is simply not interested in what an artist has to say about themselves or what the artist's friends have to say about them. Unless, of course, those personal feelings themselves receive significant coverage and are reported on by these reliable, vetted sources with a reputation for fact-checking. In any case, I can almost guarantee you that if an admin chooses to unblock you, it will be on the condition that you do not make any edits to the article in question. This is a group-maintained encyclopedia, not a social media site or a promotional platform. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; since you say you have no other interest in editing, I suggest that you withdraw your request. You won't be unblocked to contribute to that article. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay, so i don't understand, it is all information that IS factually accurate and can be vetted through press, through history and also acclaimed art historians.. does this mean that essentially I am unable to ever edit on any articles simply because the first one i start with is a legitimate update on this specific article? i do not understand that i cannot simply be part of the wikipedia editing group just simply because i am doing my first edit on this page - it is not personal feelings or thoughts, sorry to say, but legitimate background, technique explanations, professional journey etc etc - facts. Cbelli92 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]