User talk:Fearonewhohasnothingtolose

Welcome!

Hello, Fearonewhohasnothingtolose, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 complete 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! El_C 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interests declaration

Hello, Fearonewhohasnothingtolose. 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
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 WP:Spam);
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. El_C 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Inproper "sock puppet" designation with no avenue to appeal

I have nothing to do with this user: " This account is a suspected sock puppet of Mdanman2"

How do I appeal it and who suspected me ? Also please look at the rest of my explanations and somewhere provide me with a response to my assertions.

Fearonewhohasnothingtolose (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. El_C 00:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, how do I have a conversation / talk / message with you? Please understand a few things regarding my edits, 1. How is it on the Keith Fink page one can claim many students feel this way, and why is it necessary to have a quote hosted on a dropbox account of a single student's supposed review of the course? It makes absolutely no sense, and is not befitting of Wikipedia. Basically the post itself is taking us for a bunch of morons that it is clear self promotion.

2. How is my edit where I added the fact that Fink's class that is listed as one of the top 25 best classes at UCLA, is also listed as one of the top 25 easiest classes at UCLA? I clicked on the source link and was SHOCKED that this fact was not mentioned alongside it. I am pretty sure even an elementary school child could draw the link that perhaps because the course is one of the easiest classes at UCLA it is also referred to as one of the best.

I made one edit, and was trying to do an explanation of the edit, and for that you simply dismissed my work as not helpful, claimed I have a conflict of interest, banned me, and did not even give me an opportunity to explain myself or my position. This is very unfair. I started on this article and wanted to balance it out. Where can we have a discussion about it and perhaps suggest different variants that would make the article more balanced and less promotional? Perhaps my changes were too harsh, I can accept that. However the current version is way way way too puffery.

So I am new to Wikipedia and trying to figure out how to use it. I was adding an explanation of why I did my edit, and was trying to do a new line and did shift + enter and it submitted by accident twice, not on purpose.

I am trying to have a page / discussion about the Legal section of the Keith Fink page, I opened it up and saw the edit history, and it is pretty blatantly clear that the article has been beyond manipulated several times for self promotion.

I changed "many" to "some" as promotional, and, as mentioned below your unblock request, I also removed the top-25 bit, entirely, also as promotional. Finally, I added the {{promotional}} template to the top of the article because I, too, am concerned that it remains promotional. As for the block, that was a checkuser block, so your unblock request below is invalid. No individual admin can grant your request — only a functionary or the Arbitration Committee can do so. El_C 01:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EL_C Please read this message, as well as Bbb23: Unfair labeling of my account and unwillingness to consider the validity of my points raised.

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).

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

Request reason:

My block was unwarranted. I am taking the section I wrote to attempt to have the user who flagged / warned me EL_C and the ultimate admin who blocked me, Bbb123 to view it. So instead of having it twice I have cut and pasted. Bbbb23: Why is it you are saying I am associated with another account? I guess you would like me to leave Wikipedia, which is fine by me, I was just trying to add a bit of intellectual depth to the analysis part under his teaching section. Let me leave you with it seems quite unfair that I have no forum in which to explain my position, and I am just hit with a ban because of some pretty baseless suspicions. To be completely frank with you I thought my edits were VERY HELPFUL, and I think that you could have edited my edits, but to revert the page back completely and not even consider the point I am making, that a class in the list of the top 25 best classes, is also listed on the top 25 easiest classes, it is in my humble opinion a pretty basic fact that the reader should be made aware of. Yet you just removed this edit. I removed the section about the quote that one or two students gave about how great the class was because frankly it is completely irrelevant and over verbiage. It can simply be replaced with, Fink was a professor beloved by many students, some of whom even credit him for being a positive life changing influence. That is much better than the double quoted garbage out there right now. This is what I had written before at the bottom of another section where I was warned about edit warring: El_C, how do I have a conversation / talk / message with you? Please understand a few things regarding my edits, 1. How is it on the Keith Fink page one can claim many students feel this way, and why is it necessary to have a quote hosted on a dropbox account of a single student's supposed review of the course? It makes absolutely no sense, and is not befitting of Wikipedia. Basically the post itself is taking us for a bunch of morons that it is clear self promotion. 2. How is my edit where I added the fact that Fink's class that is listed as one of the top 25 best classes at UCLA, is also listed as one of the top 25 easiest classes at UCLA? I clicked on the source link and was SHOCKED that this fact was not mentioned alongside it. I am pretty sure even an elementary school child could draw the link that perhaps because the course is one of the easiest classes at UCLA it is also referred to as one of the best. I made one edit, and was trying to do an explanation of the edit, and for that you simply dismissed my work as not helpful, claimed I have a conflict of interest, banned me, and did not even give me an opportunity to explain myself or my position. This is very unfair. I started on this article and wanted to balance it out. Where can we have a discussion about it and perhaps suggest different variants that would make the article more balanced and less promotional? Perhaps my changes were too harsh, I can accept that. However the current version is way way way too puffery. So I am new to Wikipedia and trying to figure out how to use it. I was adding an explanation of why I did my edit, and was trying to do a new line and did shift + enter and it submitted by accident twice, not on purpose. I am trying to have a page / discussion about the Legal section of the Keith Fink page, I opened it up and saw the edit history, and it is pretty blatantly clear that the article has been beyond manipulated several times for self promotion. Fearonewhohasnothingtolose (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Deep fried okra 01:44, 30 January 2020 (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.

In regards to the content, I removed the top-25 bit entirely, as promotional. I also made several other changes to curtail the article's promotional nature. See my response above for details about that. See also my explanation as to why your unblock request is invalid as such. El_C 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further on ublocking

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account.