User talk:Damjana12
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Damjana12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Best practices for editors with close associations
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Damjana12, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by bit.bio on behalf of bit.bi for their contributions to Wikipedia. |
Damjana12 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Damjana12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand the reason for my block and apologize for any disruption caused. I have reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines and am committed to editing constructively and following all policies in the future. I respectfully request an unblock so that I can contribute positively to the community. Thank you for considering my request.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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:
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. asilvering (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Kotter (June 17)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Kotter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello, Damjana12!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Replaceable non-free use File:Mark Kotter in BBC Surgeons At the Edge of Life.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Mark Kotter in BBC Surgeons At the Edge of Life.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing<your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message and for bringing this to my attention. I understand the concern regarding the first non-free content criterion. I believe that the file "Mark Kotter in BBC Surgeons At the Edge of Life.png" can be replaceable by a freely licensed file. Damjana12 (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
[edit]Hello, Damjana12. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello 331 dot,
- Thank you for your message and the important guidelines regarding conflict of interest (COI). I appreciate the emphasis on maintaining the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia content. My contributions are made purely in the interest of providing accurate and reliable information, adhering to Wikipedia's content policies and learning how to become an editor. Damjana12 (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please communicate with me without using an AI.(82% certain according to GPTzero). Your post above uses a lot of words but says nothing. What is your general relationship with the subject of your edits? 331dot (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message 331 dot. What is GPTzero? I'm sorry if you think my words says nothing. I want to emphasise that I strive to maintain a neutral standpoint as I know encyclopedia is source which provide knowledge based on facts. I base my contributions on thorough research from various reputable sources such as research papers and media outlets. My focus is on enhancing articles related to biology and medicine which is my field of interest. If you have any specific concerns or questions about how I approach editing, please feel free to let me know as I am keen to learn from this community and would like to keep contributing. Damjana12 (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I chose to create the page on Mark after I watched this series on BBC where he is performing the operation and then I watched some more videos and I started reading about all his work which I'm thinking it will change the future of the medicine most likely this is super inspiring, check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nik8yYeVFo8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrVQXHmxH7Y&t=1s Damjana12 (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- GPTzero is an AI written text detection tool. Talk page posts are not expected to be grammatically and stylistically perfect. AI also has difficulty capturing the specifics of a situation and usually writes in broad, glowing terms.
- How did you get access to Dr. Kotter to take this image of him where he posed for you? 331dot (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Hi Damjana12. Just going to add two things to what 331dot posted above. First, please be very careful when adding YouTube links to any Wikipedia page. One of the ones you added above seem to be in violation of WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK; so, I removed it. If you added that particlar link to other Wikipedia pages, you should remove it.Second, it's better for you to be as transparent as possible about any connection you may have to Dr. Kotter because it will make it much easier for others to help you. If Dr. Kotter meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), then there's no reason why a Wikipedia artice about him can't be written. If, however, you're connected to him in a more than casual way, then you might not be the best person to do so as explained in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In particular, if you've been tasked or otherwise contracted to create a Wikipedia article about him, you will almost certainly need to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure because a failure to do so would be a violation of wmf:Terms of use and could lead to your account being WP:BLOCKed. Such an outcome would not only be bad for you, but perhaps Dr. Kotter too. Given that Wikipedia is part of the WP:REALWORLD, any attempts to inappropriately create or edit content about Dr. Kotter on Wikipedia will be there for everyone to see; so, please try to make sure you're more WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE going forward. If, by chance, you've been using AI to reply to 331dot's above posts, please stop. It's much better for other WP:WIKIPEDIANs to hear from you than some bot, even if you think your posts might not be written in perfect English. Wikipedians can be a pretty understanding bunch, and they'll be happy to help you whenever they can as long as they feel you're being upfront with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please communicate with me without using an AI.(82% certain according to GPTzero). Your post above uses a lot of words but says nothing. What is your general relationship with the subject of your edits? 331dot (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Myelopathy.org moved to draftspace
[edit]Thanks for your contributions to Myelopathy.org. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because 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) 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]Hello Damjana12. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:Damjana12. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Damjana12|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. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi 331dot,
- I have not receive any payment for creating pages. If the charity page I recently create is in too promotional tone I will have a look at it again and amend the tone of voice to be more neutral. Thank you for your message. Damjana12 (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also I have a question do people actually get paid for creating articles, I thought the whole point of Wikipedia is that is free, open to all and that everyone can contribute things that they have interest in? So why there would be a template for the payment to individuals, if not to pay directly to Wikipedia for general contributions to the platform for existing this make sense but paying individuals for making contributions this I don't understand? Damjana12 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- You claim to have taken a picture of Mark Kotter and he appears to have posed for you. How did you obtain access to him to take his image, and does he have other involvement with your editing?
- Wikipedia does not pay editors. Some people offer their editing services for payment online, some establish companies to do so, and PR companies will edit for their clients. These have varying reputability, and many are scams. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No the picture I added first was from online if I remember right it was perhaps Instagram, but I was wrong to post that as I didn't have the copy rights I learned about this via Wiki commons community and you letting me know I can't use it so I appreciate that you told me. I commented then that it should be removed and I did it the right way now to reach out for permissions if they can share the copy rights and the headshot which is now on the page. As it was my first time to do this thing I had to learn how it works and I apologise for the mistake I made at the start. Now I know that adding any images or logos I need to seek permission before adding on Wiki Commons. Oh I see so you thought I'm a scam and paid but no my actual interest is medicine and biology specially chronic diseases and spine conditions as I have a Spondylo Arthritis myself and I read a lot about this things so I thought to add some contributions on this topics first. Thank you for being so proactive and helping me understand how things work here. Damjana12 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No the picture I added first was from online if I remember right it was perhaps Instagram, but I was wrong to post that as I didn't have the copy rights I learned about this via Wiki commons community and you letting me know I can't use it so I appreciate that you told me. I commented then that it should be removed and I did it the right way now to reach out for permissions if they can share the copy rights and the headshot which is now on the page. As it was my first time to do this thing I had to learn how it works and I apologise for the mistake I made at the start. Now I know that adding any images or logos I need to seek permission before adding on Wiki Commons. Oh I see so you thought I'm a scam and paid but no my actual interest is medicine and biology specially chronic diseases and spine conditions as I have a Spondylo Arthritis myself and I read a lot about this things so I thought to add some contributions on this topics first. Thank you for being so proactive and helping me understand how things work here. Damjana12 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw that you recently created the page Spondyloarthritis (SpA). First off, I want to applaud you for being bold and making a new page as creating an article from scratch is hard, and I don't want you to think that no one is acknowledging your hard work. However, the term Spondyloarthritis is a synonym for Spondyloarthropathy, a page that already exists here on Wikipedia. For that reason, I think your page should be redirected to Spondyloarthropathy. I also wanted to talk to you about editing medical Wikipedia pages as it's kind of tricky, and we have kind of our own process. Most of what I'm saying is summarized over at Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, and I highly recommend you give that a read as well.
We usually don't put abbreviation in article names, this is covered in Wikipedia:Article titles. We also tend to follow a specific format when writing about diseases/disorders, which can be found at Template:Article templates/Medical condition. In general, most writing should be done in a paragraph style and not with bullet points. For the most part, medicine-related articles should be written based on medical sources. This includes clinical guidelines and other secondary sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) goes over this in detail.
This is more my personal advice, but typically, when writing a medical page I'll start by just searching for the term in Google to see if I can find some easy-to-understand sources that can give me a very basic understanding of what I'm writing about. For example, Cleveland Clinic page on Spondyloarthritis. Once I feel I have a basic understanding of the topic, I'll use Google Scholar to find my current sources. From there I'll try to identify reliable sources such as clinical guidelines, and systemic reviews. Here are some examples of what I found:
- Ramiro, Sofia; Nikiphorou, Elena; Sepriano, Alexandre; Ortolan, Augusta; Webers, Casper; Baraliakos, Xenofon; Landewé, Robert B M; Van den Bosch, Filip E; Boteva, Boryana; Bremander, Ann; Carron, Philippe; Ciurea, Adrian; van Gaalen, Floris A; Géher, Pál; Gensler, Lianne; Hermann, Josef; de Hooge, Manouk; Husakova, Marketa; Kiltz, Uta; López-Medina, Clementina; Machado, Pedro M; Marzo-Ortega, Helena; Molto, Anna; Navarro-Compán, Victoria; Nissen, Michael J; Pimentel-Santos, Fernando M; Poddubnyy, Denis; Proft, Fabian; Rudwaleit, Martin; Telkman, Mark; Zhao, Sizheng Steven; Ziade, Nelly; van der Heijde, Désirée (2022-10-21). "ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis: 2022 update". Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 82 (1). BMJ: 19–34. doi:10.1136/ard-2022-223296. ISSN 0003-4967.
- Hauk, Lisa (2017-11-15). "Spondyloarthritis: NICE Releases Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment". American Family Physician. 96 (10): 677–678. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
- Dougados, Maxime; Baeten, Dominique (2011). "Spondyloarthritis". The Lancet. 377 (9783). Elsevier BV: 2127–2137. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60071-8. ISSN 0140-6736.
- Kataria, Rajesh K.; Brent, Lawrence H. (2004-06-15). "Spondyloarthropathies". American Family Physician. 69 (12): 2853–2860. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
All of this being said, I was wondering if you would like to help me improve the already existing Spondyloarthropathy page? I feel it could use some work and if you're up for it I would appreciate the help. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to reach out and for your thoughtful feedback! I truly appreciate the support and the guidance, especially as creating a new page from scratch can feel a bit daunting. I wasn't aware that "Spondyloarthritis" was a synonym for "Spondyloarthropathy" and that a page already existed, so redirecting my page makes complete sense.
- Also, thank you for pointing me toward the relevant resources and style guides. I’ll definitely take a look at the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and the guidelines on identifying reliable sources. I’m still learning how to navigate the intricacies of editing medical content on Wikipedia, and your advice about starting with easily digestible sources and building from there will be incredibly helpful going forward.
- I’d love to collaborate on improving the Spondyloarthropathy page. It’s always great to work together to make content as accurate and useful as possible. Feel free to let me know where you think we could start, and I'd be happy to help!
- Thanks again for the encouragement and all the pointers! Damjana12 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just a brief note to other contributors to this thread that user Damjana12 was site blocked as a promo only account 2 hours before making the post above.
- The user is therefore unable to edit articles and any other user editing articles on behalf of a blocked user would be in breach of WP:PROXYING. So, although the user would
love to collaborate
with non-blocked users I don't believe there can be any realistic possibility of that occurring. Axad12 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Myelopathy.org, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit]Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Myelopathy.org, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it because of unfair accusations I have not made money by making any of my contributions on Wikipedia and next time I'm accused unfairly I will simply stop contributing and go of here. Damjana12 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Kotter
[edit]Hello Damjana12,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mark Kotter for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Mark Kotter to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
-MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit]There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you continue to remove tags from BLP and don't disclose your COI at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio, you risk being blocked soon. Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention Saqib. I'm eager to address any concerns as quickly as possible and ensure everything aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines.
- Could you please clarify where exactly the issue with the page is? I would also appreciate more specific guidance on what I can do to properly address the conflict of interest and avoid any future misunderstandings. I'll be happy to cooperate fully to resolve this.
- Thank you again for your help! 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. First, please declare conflicts of interest you may have, including your relationship with Bit.bio. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- In 2020 I did internship there for 3 months and I was following the company progress since then they became one of the most successful UK biotechs also Government posted recently about them on their LinkedIn, but I wasn't asked to make a page for them or being paid, it was my own initiative to start contributing to Wikipedia. 86.139.243.27 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Remember to log in. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- In 2020 I did internship there for 3 months and I was following the company progress since then they became one of the most successful UK biotechs also Government posted recently about them on their LinkedIn, but I wasn't asked to make a page for them or being paid, it was my own initiative to start contributing to Wikipedia. 86.139.243.27 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. First, please declare conflicts of interest you may have, including your relationship with Bit.bio. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit.bio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Alpha3031, I've build the page Bit.bio which is mentioned now that is in review for deletion. I would like to learn what the issue for this is and if there is anything I can do to improve the page that it won't led to it's deletion. Thank you for your help in advance. 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
October 2024
[edit]Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:
- Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
- State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
- Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.
- The explanations you've provided as 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.139.243.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that your only connection with the subject is that you were an intern several years ago is simply not credible. SmartSE (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- {{unblock|reason=}}
- Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
- I am writing to respectfully appeal the decision to block my account indefinitely for alleged advertising, promotion, and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use related to paid editing. I understand the seriousness of these accusations and the importance of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia as a neutral and reliable source of information.
- However, I would like to clarify that at no point was I paid or compensated in any way for the edits I have made. I have never engaged in promotional activity on behalf of any person, group, company, or organization. My contributions were made solely with the intent to improve the quality of information available on Wikipedia, and I always strive to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies.
- I understand that undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited and I fully support Wikipedia’s stance on this matter. I have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements, and I want to reaffirm that I have not violated these terms. There may have been a misunderstanding regarding my edits, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to explain my actions and clarify any confusion.
- In the future, I intend to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a transparent and responsible manner. I will avoid editing any topics where a conflict of interest might exist, and I will ensure that I strictly adhere to Wikipedia’s rules on neutrality and verifiability.
- I respectfully request that my account be unblocked so I can resume my editing activities in good faith. If there are specific edits or actions that raised concerns, I am more than willing to discuss them in detail to ensure there is no further misunderstanding.
- Thank you for considering my appeal, and I hope to be given the opportunity to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community once again. Damjana12 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- This unblock request is 100% AI generated according to gptzero.me and is therefore entirely inadmissible. Asking a machine to create promises to behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies is a travesty.
- The AI has said for you that you
always strive to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies
but that is obviously untrue as there have been many breaches of policy in your activity which it seems that you still refuse to accept. - Furthermore, I'm not sure why you continue to deny being a paid contributor when anyone who cares to do so can spend 2 minutes on Google and see that you have a very clear conflict of interest in relation to the relevant subjects.
- The AI has also say for you that you
have not violated [the UPE] terms
, but the off-wiki evidence indicates very clearly that you have repeatedly violated the UPE policy over a 4 month period and have repeatedly lied (in a variety of ways) whenever challenged on that subject. Axad12 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)- Your message reeks of arrogance, ignorance, and an unhealthy reliance on flawed AI tools. First, GPTZero is notoriously unreliable in distinguishing AI-generated from human-written text, so throwing that into the mix as your "evidence" is laughable at best. If you can't back up your claims with solid proof, you're just flinging baseless accusations.
- You claim that I’ve breached policies repeatedly, yet fail to specify a single instance or cite evidence. It's easy to make vague allegations, but hard to stand up to scrutiny when you're put on the spot, isn't it? Wikipedia's policies aren't designed to be weaponized by people like you who clearly have an agenda.
- As for your claim about my alleged conflict of interest and accusations of paid editing, it's incredible how quickly people like you jump to conclusions based on incomplete, off-wiki assumptions. You’re so certain about these accusations, yet conveniently leave out details. Perhaps you're confusing circumstantial gossip with facts? Until you have hard, undeniable proof, you might want to rethink your accusations.
- Also, if you think you can disregard someone’s unblock request based on an unproven assumption about its origin, you clearly don't understand Wikipedia’s principles of fairness and due process. Do better. Damjana12 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am basing it on material that you yourself placed elsewhere on the internet and which demonstrates your connection to the subjects of the relevant articles.
- I have no agenda other than preventing Wikipedia from being abused as a promotional tool (especially by people who lie about their connection to article subjects). That is pretty much the entirety of my activity on Wikipedia, you are just the latest such account who happened to be brought to my attention. Axad12 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's ironic how you claim to be fighting against promotional abuse while making broad assumptions about me based on information from off-wiki sources. Wikipedia is built on verifiability and transparency, but your accusations are grounded in speculation and circumstantial evidence. You still haven't provided clear proof or pointed to specific instances of policy violations, instead relying on vague claims about information I supposedly "placed elsewhere on the internet." Where is the concrete evidence linking me to these subjects?
- You say you have no agenda, yet your eagerness to cast me in a negative light without solid proof suggests otherwise. If you're so confident in your claims, why not present them with clarity and precision? Wikipedia's mission is to be fair, and any actions against an editor should be based on facts, not assumptions or innuendo.
- Let's focus on Wikipedia's core principles—neutrality, good faith, and clear evidence. If you believe there's a legitimate concern, then bring it forward in a transparent and verifiable way. Otherwise, these continued unfounded accusations serve only to derail productive discussion. And now that they blocked me I can't even contribute anymore anyway why putting in effort if then is removed and not appreciated. Damjana12 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do not need to provide evidence of your policy violations, you have already been blocked. The only reason I have not pointed to the evidence in relation to your UPE is that to do so would breach the policy on WP:OUTING. However, I pointed out at COIN that evidence did exist and another user found the same evidence and blocked you on the basis that you have a very clear paid conflict of interest.
- I appreciate that you're frustrated that you've been blocked, but it really isn't my fault. Any other responsible user would have taken the same approach in seeking that you be blocked (and if you look at the discussions at COIN, at your talk page and at the AfD for Bit.bio you'll see that a large number of other users took objection to your promotional activity). Indeed, you were warned about the possibility of being blocked as long ago as 21st August.
- Since you are the one who has been blocked, the person under scrutiny here is you not me. It would be better if you were to admit your own policy violations to demonstrate that you appreciate what you did to get blocked. Similarly you should admit the nature of your conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing. Axad12 (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate how some are quick to accuse others without offering any actual proof. I want to make it clear that I have never been paid for any edits, and it’s disappointing that such assumptions are being made without concrete evidence. It's easy to say "evidence exists" without presenting any, but making such accusations without proof is unfair and harmful.
- I understand you're stating that another user blocked me, but that doesn’t make the accusations any more valid. What’s truly sad is that this whole situation seems to stem from speculation rather than fact. It's important to recognize that while discussions may have taken place, assumptions and accusations don't replace genuine evidence.
- Being blocked for an unfounded reason is frustrating, but this whole narrative that I've violated policies or that there’s some kind of “paid conflict of interest” is simply untrue. I take editing and community guidelines seriously, and to see my actions misrepresented like this is disappointing. Rather than focusing on unsupported claims, I hope we can all remain objective and adhere to facts over assumptions. Damjana12 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- It may help if I clarify here that 'paid' editing doesn't have to involve being paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. It only has to include a close financial relationship between the editor and the article subjects. The edits could even have been made in one's own time and it would still constitute 'paid'.
- So, the evidence that we both know exists is clearly sufficient to place you within the bracket of 'paid'. Sadly there is thus no point in complaining that your block was based on speculation, assumptions, accusations, unsupported claims, etc.
- In the post at the top of this thread, notifying you of the block, it actually states that your unblock request must feature 3 things, one of which is that you must disclose the nature of your paid editing relationship and the relevant financial conflict of interest. Realistically, unless you do that, the chances of you being unblocked are essentially zero.
- That is the basis upon which an unblock request has to be made. Saying "I have been wrongly blocked, I have no financial conflict of interest" is not a valid line of argument at this point.
- I appreciate that that isn't what you would have wanted to hear, but I am genuinely trying to help you by explaining the relevant policy and process. Axad12 (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain the situation in detail and for still engaging with me. I appreciate your efforts in clarifying the policy regarding paid editing and conflicts of interest.
- I understand now that it’s not just about being paid directly for Wikipedia edits, but that a close relationship with the subject of the articles qualifies as 'paid' editing. Given that, I see where the issue lies.
- What I’d really like to ask now is what steps I can take to make this situation better? If disclosing the nature of the relationship is necessary, I would genuinely like to know what that involves and how best I can go about doing so. Basically what do I need to do? I want to make sure I’m following the proper process and would appreciate any guidance on how to move forward. As I do still see value in contributing and making pages and my intention was to add to Wikipedia on the subjects I am familiar with.
- Again, thank you for your patience and for explaining this so clearly. Damjana12 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note above. I am going to summon the blocking administrator, Smartse, and hopefully they can talk you through the process.
- Do not worry about the tone of the earlier posts in this discussion. I get that sort of thing all the time (and a lot worse!) because people tend to get annoyed when they get blocked (or have material deleted, etc). That is entirely understandable, I appreciate that it is usually caused by a misunderstanding of relevant policy rather than by malice.
- Regards, Axad12 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Axad12 and SmartSE,
- First, I want to apologise again if my previous messages came across as frustrated. That was never my intention, and I appreciate your patience in this situation and still trying to explain me where I went wrong. I’m trying to better understand the issues that have been raised, especially regarding the COI (conflict of interest) concerns and what steps I should take to address them I must admit I didn't understand that well and how to disclose it.
- Just to clarify, I was not paid for creating the page in question. I did an internship at the company Bit.bio in the past some years ago, so I do have knowledge of them, which is why I contributed to the article. I now realise that this could be perceived as a conflict of interest, even though I didn’t fully understand the COI guidelines at the time. If my involvement crosses that line, I’m more than willing to make corrections and do what you advise should have done from the early start when I started doing the first page.
- Could you kindly explain what needs to be done to address the situation properly? I genuinely want to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's standards and policies.
- Thank you for taking the time to review this, and I hope we can work toward resolving the issues constructively. And apologise if my tone before was defensive and came out of frustration. Damjana12 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- The internship is not what I have been referring to, but we shall see what Smartse has to say. Axad12 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes the internship was not the issue. As Axad12 has already explained, WP:OUTING prohibits us from stating in public what the issue is. If you add an email address to your account I'm happy to explain over email. If there is something else you want to disclose, then first of all just say what it is and we can go from there. Finally, you haven't actually submitted an unblock request - you need to type something after the |reason =
and then remove the <nowiki></nowiki> on either side of the {{}} to activate it. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate the offer to explain over email, and I’ll add an email address to my account so we can discuss this in more detail. Regarding the unblock request, I’ll submit it properly by adding the reason and adjusting the formatting as you described.
- Thanks again for the guidance, SmartSE 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:F090:E329:2CDB:51C2 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Mark Kotter for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kotter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification regarding the discussion on the Mark Kotter article. I created the page with the intention of providing well-referenced and verifiable information on the subject. I understand the importance of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and am open to contributing to the discussion to address any concerns raised. I will review the nomination and join the conversation at Wikipedia for deletion/Mark Kotter to provide additional sources and information as needed. What further steps I need to take? Damjana12 (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Response Regarding COI and Article Deletion Discussions
[edit]Damjana12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I acknowledge that there may be a perceived Conflict of Interest (COI) due to my involvement in creating articles such as Mark Kotter and related pages. However, I have taken care to adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and notability in drafting these articles. I believe that the subjects meet Wikipedia’s standards, and I have included high-quality, independent sources to ensure the content meets encyclopedic standards.
Why the Articles Should Be Retained
- **Notability**: The subjects of these articles meet notability criteria as they have received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. I’ve ensured that multiple third-party references are included to support claims of notability.
- **Neutrality and Verifiability**: Each article has been carefully written to remain factual and unbiased, drawing on sources that meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards. I've avoided promotional language, focusing solely on verifiable facts.
- **Improvement During Discussion**: I am open to collaborating with other editors to address any specific issues raised in the deletion discussions. I welcome additional edits that can further enhance neutrality or clarity and am committed to supporting Wikipedia’s policies in this regard.
Thank you again for notifying me, and please know that I am happy to assist in any way needed to ensure these articles align with Wikipedia’s standards. I will refrain from editing the pages directly to respect COI policies but will contribute constructively to the discussions.
Best regards, Damjana12 Damjana12 (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for reviewing my request.
I understand that my previous appeal may not have adequately addressed the reasons for my block. I’d like to clarify that I now fully understand the reason for my block, which was due to not disclosing a conflict of interest (COI) when contributing to an article related to my employer. I now realise that COI disclosure is necessary on Wikipedia even if contributions are unpaid, and I acknowledge that my lack of transparency could have affected the neutrality and collaborative nature of the editing environment.
I apologise for my actions and for any issues they may have caused within the Wikipedia community. I assure you that I am committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines in the future and will avoid any similar actions going forward. I am now fully aware of the importance of disclosing any potential COI and will ensure transparency in all my future contributions.
To demonstrate my commitment to constructive participation, I have reviewed the following resources:
Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies relevant to my previous actions, including the policies on Conflict of Interest, Neutral Point of View, and Verifiability. The guide to appealing blocks, so that I understand the necessary steps to reintegrate responsibly. If unblocked, I intend to focus on making useful, policy-compliant contributions that align with Wikipedia’s standards. I am interested in contributing to areas such as improving grammar, formatting, and citations on existing articles. I am committed to only making edits that are beneficial and will not disrupt the community.
Thank you for considering my appeal. I am open to any additional guidance you might offer to ensure I can contribute positively to Wikipedia going forward.
Decline reason:
This seems pretty obviously to have been written by a chatbot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2024 (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.