User talk:Epeclect

Speedy deletion nomination of Clinical method

Hello Epeclect,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Clinical method for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TimothyJosephWood 17:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just included the refeference you asked for : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Méthode_clinique

Wikipedia (in any language) is not a valid reference - see WP:RS Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Clinical method, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Epeclect

User:Epeclect, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epeclect and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Epeclect during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 31 August 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).

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

Request reason:

epeclect} contributing in transparency

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked until:

you propose a new username that meets the username policy
you confirm that this account is used by one individual only
you agree to avoid creating or directly editing articles related to your organisation (requested edits will still be permitted)
you agree to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and disclose your paid relationship in accordance with the paid contributor policy
you indicate what areas of Wikipedia you intend to edit in the future

If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond writing about your organisation, then you will not be unblocked. If this is the case, I recommend you consider alternative outlets. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:16, 1 September 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.

Are you here to edit articles unrelated to your organization or are you intending to write about your organization? Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm interested in subjects like psychology and Human sciences, as a professional, but i m here to contribute and not to promote anything. I thought transparency obliged me to present my association in my user page, but is anonymous accounts obligatory ? . Wikipedia procedures are completly unhuman in my opinion.--Epeclect (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that disclosure of a financial conflict of interest is required by the Wikipedia terms of use. The relevant policies that address why this account is blocked are WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU, which address user names that imply an intent to promote a subject and user names that imply shared use respectively. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Clinical method for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinical method is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical method until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

I see that the standard related templates were not yet posted on your talk page. Here they are:

Hello, Epeclect. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Epeclect", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing this form, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you.

—Paleo Neonate – 19:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeclect. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Katie^talk 13:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]