User talk:El662009

Welcome!

Hello, El662009, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Mpemba effect. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! paul2520 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have several times added material drawn from a predatory open access journal. You also repeatedly added citations to what I can only conclude is your own work. Please do nto do this. If you think your work should be included in Wikipedia articles, please suggest it on the Talk pages and leave someone else to be the judge. See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 3 December 2017 (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).

El662009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead El662009 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to actually explain what the problem was and also explain what you will do differently if unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2017 (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).

El662009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I added citations to my own work.If I am unblocked,I will suggest it on the Talk pages El662009 (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Part of the reason for your block was socking. You need to address if you have other accounts that you have used illegitimately. If you have, then you may only use one account at a time and the others will remain blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2017 (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).

El662009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will not add material drawn from predatory journals.I will suggest in talk pages an unpublished article.

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
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) 12:25, 29 December 2017 (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 have still not addressed the alleged sockpuppetry - what, if any, is your connection with User:Eaoa515? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

El662009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked because I have added material drawn from a predatory journal.Also I added citations to my own work.I will never do these again.I have not and never used other accounts.I do not know user Eaoa515.It is the first time I see it!If I am unblocked,I will do nothing at the moment.I may later will suggest my new article in talk pages when I will have written it.

Accept reason:

Since the sockpuppetry issue seems a false positive, I have unblocked you. Welcome back. You should take a look at WP:SELFCITE, though; as an expert in the field you surely can find many other ways to improve Wikipedia beyond proposing more citations of your own works. Huon (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El662009, please comment on what you would do if unblocked. Guy, I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry beyond a vague similarity of usernames and edits to the same article; am I missing something? Huon (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon: could be a false positive, happy to defer to your independent judgment on this. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Do not bother suggesting this on the talk page. Your work is published by a predatory open access journal. Scientific Research Publishing is a scam. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion

Please stop abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, [1] by now-blocked obvious sockpuppet Takistolos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the fact that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote your own paper, I think you are not here for our benefit, but for your own. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (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).

El662009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is unfair because after first block I had told that I could suggest my new paper to the talk pages for judgement El662009 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That doesn't address the sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)What do you mean? El662009 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 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.

Noe that you were not given carte blanche to promote your work, you were informed that we only include material published in reliable independent sources, your original link was to a predatory journal, your second attempt is not in the peer reviewed literature at all. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]