User talk:Dbcnmlanl

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Flat Out (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Flat Out (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at KIVA (software), 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. Flat Out (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Flat Out (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at KIVA (software) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Flat Out (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dbcnmlanl reported by User:Flat Out (Result: ). Thank you. Flat Out (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your addition to KIVA (software) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because of persistent edit-warring, promotional editing, and editing in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy (as well as very probably in violation of copyright law). You have shown no sign of taking any notice at all of messages from other editors explaining their concerns about your editing. If you understand the reasons for this block and are willing to undertake to avoid doing the same things again, you may ask for an administrator to unblock your account. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page, replacing "Your reason here" with an explanation as to why you think unblocking you would be a good idea. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dbcnmlanl. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your email

I am answering here, rather than by email, because unless there are special concerns, such as need for confidentiality, all communications about Wikipedia administration should be visible to other editors and administrators. I shall try to answer the points you raised, and I hope I shall do so in ways which help to clarify the issues for you. If you need further clarification, please do ask.

Referring to the content you posted to the article, you say "Then you wiped it out without contacting me". (Presumably "you" is there intended to be a generic plural, as I personally did not remove anything, and indeed I have not edited the article at all.) However, there were numerous attempts to contact you, as you can see in the messages above. Presumably you did not notice the notifications telling you that you had new messages. In the standard Wikipedia interface, these notifications show up as a yellow bar at the top of the page telling you that you have new messages, but unfortunately in the mobile interface it is just a small coloured circle with a number in it, which can easily be overlooked by a new editor who does not realise what it means.
You ask me to restore your editing, but there are two reasons for not doing that. Firstly, the editing was unambiguously promotional, and did not conform to the requirement that Wikipedia articles be written from a neutral point of view. What you posted was clearly written to impress the reader with what a worthwhile job you are doing. Secondly, when you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. On the rare occasions that the owner of copyright licenses content for such very free reuse, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. An editor suggested above that content you posted may be in the public domain, but I have seen no proof of that. I could give you a link to instructions on how to release copyright for content you post to Wikipedia, but I do not think that would be helpful, as it would encourage you to put time and effort into doing something which would be doomed to failure, because the text in question would not be acceptable even if the copyright issue were resolved, since it is promotional, as explained above.
You say that you are "the administrator of this page". I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you may mean that you have decided to take charge of the article which you edited, and control its content. If so, there are two misunderstandings. Firstly, it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that articles are open to be edited by any editor (with a few exceptions in special circumstances), and nobody can take charge of an article and control it. You may find it helpful to read the policy on ownership of content. Secondly, a Wikipedia article should be written from a neutral, third party, point of view, and therefore anyone with the kind of close connection to the subject of an article that you have in this case should not be taking an active role in editing the article. You should read the guideline on conflict of interest before doing any more editing. (The kind of promotional editing you have done, is, in fact, a good example of the main reason for that guideline.)
You ask me to unblock you. Instructions on how to request an unblock are included in the block notice above.

I have spent a significant amount of time in writing this message. I do hope it helps to clarify the situation, including the reasons for the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an answer to your second email. For the reasons I have already mentioned, please post any messages about this here, rather than in an email, unless there are specific reasons for needing to keep communications confidential.

You say that the KIVA code is in the public domain. That is a completely different question from whether the text you posted about it is in the public domain. Maybe it is, but I haven't seen that it is, and it is up to the person posting content to provide evidence.
You say that you wish to be unblocked so that you can "provide accurate information and review and edit additions that are not accurate". However, the content you posted is full of text such as "the KIVA development program is providing a state-of-the-art capability", which is pure marketing speak, designed to impress the reader with what an up to date job you are doing, not to provide accurate information. From what you said in your email to me you appear to be genuinely unaware that much of what you have posted reads to an independent outside observer as marketing language. That is an excellent example of why the conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which one has a close personal attachment: even if one sincerely believes one is writing neutrally it can be difficult to stand back and see one's own writing from the detached perspective of an outsider, with the result that one is very likely to write in ways which seem promotional to such independent outsiders.
I have no doubt whatever that you came to Wikipedia in perfectly good faith, believing that what you were doing was acceptable, but what you have written to me gives me the clear impression that you have not fully understood the information in the messages above, particularly in relation to the conflict of interest guideline and the issue of promotional editing. That being so, it is likely that unblocking you now would run the risk that you make the same mistakes again, and get blocked again. Not only would that be unhelpful both to you and to Wikipedia, but also being blocked again for the same or similar reasons as before would be likely to reduce the likelihood of an administrator's being willing to unblock you again. I therefore think it would be unhelpful both to Wikipedia and to you to unblock you unless and until you can show that you do understand the relevant issues, and will not be likely to make the same mistakes again.
I suggest that you carefully re-read the messages above, and have a look at the linked policies, guidelines, etc on neutral point of view, edit-warring and conflict of interest, and the guide to appealling blocks, and then make an unblock request as explained above in the block notice. I am sorry to have to throw so much reading at you; in my opinion the single worst change that has happened to Wikipedia over the years is the growth from one short page of simple guidelines to countless pages of lengthy policies and guidelines, but I'm afraid that's how it is.

One last point. It has taken me a considerable amount of time to compose and edit my two messages to you. I don't put that time and effort into writing to people I see as vandals, spammers, or otherwise acting in bad faith. I have spent this time to try to help you, because I believe you are here with good intentions, and have inadvertently fallen fowl of Wikipedia policies. However, I also think that if you are to be successful in getting at least part of what you hoped for when you came here, you will have to cut down your expectations, as the extensive text you posted is not suitable for Wikipedia, for several reasons, including its promotional character and the fact that such extended explanation of the benefits of your work is disproportionate for a general article addressed to the general reader, as opposed to a prospectus for prospective users. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]