User talk:42isthedefiniteanswer

Welcome to the AMA!

Hello 42isthedefiniteanswer, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel which reports new cases to us, and also new alerts. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out WP:AMARQ, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocates talk page, including our coordinator, Steve Caruso. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Peter Hotez250.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Hotez250.jpg, which you've attributed to Peter Hotez. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Parasites Without Borders for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parasites Without Borders 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/Parasites Without Borders 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. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello GeorgeTopouria. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Calvin Ross, 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very 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 extremely 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:GeorgeTopouria. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=GeorgeTopouria|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. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praxidicae!, thank you for the message. Could you clarify if building up a Wikipedia profile by doing free work falls under paid-contribution? I can understand if non-monetary expectations in the future are construed as qualifying as a form of payment in itself. Please advise. I am ready to put up any notice that would demonstrate to that. GeorgeTopouria (talk)

Nomination of Calvin Ross for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Calvin Ross 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/Calvin Ross (2nd nomination) 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. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. MER-C 18:22, 22 April 2020 (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).

42isthedefiniteanswer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Could someone explain in detail what this is about? Not sure how writing an article about a rapper is a bannable offense.

Decline reason:

You will need to explain your relationship with said rapper. – bradv🍁 18:31, 22 April 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.

Speedy deletion of Draft:Parasitic Diseases

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Parasitic Diseases has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – bradv🍁 18:35, 22 April 2020 (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).

42isthedefiniteanswer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I follow underground hip-hop scene and as I've got nothing useful to do in quarantine, I offered a few artists whose tracks I've been mixing such as 2c's and Ross if they wanted me to make a Wikipedia article for them. I haven't asked for any reimbursement but I may potentially be doing so for future edits if I build a solid Wikipedia profile. It currently stands to a measly 600 edits.

Decline reason:

This appeal does not appropriately address your paid editing or conflict of interest. Wikipedia prohibits covert advertising. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 23 April 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.

Please read and heed wp:coi and wp:paid. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've done some promotional editing. Please read User:Deepfriedokra/promo for information on how to not edit in a promotional manner. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I'm inclined to remove extended confirmed status for the sake of thoroughness, though I suppose the question is moot. I'll leave it. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:53, 22 April 2020 (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).

42isthedefiniteanswer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never received any form of payment for any of the edits carried out with this account. After reviewing the guidelines on Conflict of Interests, I acknowledge I should have instead initiated a Draft of said articles instead of going directly to publication, and with further review I also acknowledge having inadvertently cited two obscure references. I should have known better in that regard. My intentions, as noted above, were to build up a Wikipedia profile and kill time while at home. I understand now both paid editing and conflict of interest and will follow those rules meticulously.

Decline reason:

This is quite simply untrue. You have continued to accept Wikipedia editing jobs via your Upwork account, creating them with your User:Charmanderblue account, which was clearly created to allow you to evade the block and continue your paid editing work. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:41, 7 May 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.

This is not credible. Deepfriedokra, since you had even considered privilege revocation, yet have not declined the appeal here yet, perhaps your input could be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I asked that they read and heed PAID and COI and they say they did that. Had not known about current unblock request. Could make unblock conditional on WP:TBAN for all the subject's with articles deleted for G11 or as adverts, but how would one sift and sort? How would one know w/o a user declaration about COI/PAID editing about each edit? Could one make a safe assumption in the absence of a declaration? Some PAID editors actually contribute constructively. Most are too ingrained in their promospeak training to do so. There has been a lot of promotional editing from this user. Any article creation would need to be via WP:AFC and extended confirmed status would need to be removed. User claims to have not taken any form of compensation whether in-kind, good-will, or monetary, under the broad interpretations of WP:PAID, but means to seek compensation once they have a proven track record? Squeeze it all dry and shake it out-- I say do not unblock 'cause user is editing to build stock in trade for their business. They are creating a good will product in hopes of later compensation. I will defer decline/accept to those who have time, focus, and depth of thinking to make a considered opinion based on talk page discussion and relevant policies, based on the principle of net benefit to Wikipedia. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, I am ready to put up a notice on my profile that I am seeking to build up a Wikipedia profile for potential paid editing. I have not, however, noted that my editorial intentions are solely based on building stock in the business. I may or may not even pursue this. Also I'd rather have a practice of open statements of interests rather than policies that push said people into more complex, harder-to-catch covert activities. GeorgeTopouria (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Parasites without borders logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Parasites without borders logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fake sources?

Please explain. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to said links, gives me a "Permission error". But I'm guessing it's a link to one of the hip-hop blogs. If that is so, I have done an extremely bad due diligence on verifying the trustfulness of said source. I reviewed it after the article was flagged and I agree it was extremely negligent on my part. I had quoted the part about the musician's inspirations from early childhood and didn't take the time to verify the site as it seemed at first glance to be trustful. Again, this was entirely my fault. I wasn't complacent in fabricating or setting up said source and t̶i̶m̶e̶s̶t̶a̶m̶p̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶(Just realized there are three sources in total: one is from 2016 and two are from April 2020, so I'm not sure if this argument of mine on timestamps stands as credible). GeorgeTopouria (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup/AN

Hi 42isthedefiniteanswer,

instead of modifying the content of messages, please consider removing them entirely. If I understand the situation correctly, you would like to abandon your account similar to courtesy vanishing?

The closest we can offer to that is removing everything except the declined block appeals. The block notice can be removed, everything can be removed – just the two declined reviews have to stay per WP:BLANKING.

If you would like to request this, please say "remove all content that can be removed" below. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, no, at this point I have not decided to abandon the account and am seeking to appeal till the last instance. I have simply completely removed a few sections on my talk pages due to cluttering and privacy issues. 42isthedefiniteanswer (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. That's fine. However, I have a prediction: After reading all the content of this page, no administrator will dare to unblock the account unilaterally, the appeal will remain unanswered for a month, and then procedurally declined for not having been convincing enough.

Especially since you are explicitly interested in bringing this to the next (or last) instance, I think you're currently not really looking for repeated reviews by single administrators. There is an alternative to this process: Appealing to the community at WP:AN. This is usually done in deadlocked situations, and we seem to be having one here. Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests, Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

There will likely not be an agreement here, so let's have a discussion about this block at WP:AN. Ideally, please write an unblock appeal that you would like to make to the community. Begin with a short explanation of the situation: Which edits did you make, what happened, what is the reason given for the block? After the introduction, you practically have two choices: Explain why the block is unnecessary and was never needed, or explain why it might have been necessary but is no longer needed. If you choose the "no longer needed" approach, please explain the problem(s) that led to the block, your understanding of the problem(s), and provide examples for future unproblematic edits.

The community discussion will take at least 24 hours. You are allowed to edit your talk page in response to questions or concerns voiced in the discussion, or to add something you have forgotten to mention. You may alternatively be temporarily unblocked to edit WP:AN, but not any other page, to participate in the discussion. Please note that responding to every message in the discussion is a common mistake (WP:BLUDGEON) that should be avoided.

If you would like to appeal to the community at WP:AN, please add your community appeal below this message, starting with the text "Please copy the following appeal to WP:AN on my behalf". Please carefully read the guide for appealing blocks before writing the text. The community decision may be final for a long period of time, such as 6 months, during which a new appeal is not possible. This is as close to a final "instance" as you can go. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an attachment to this, @ToBeFree:, I have also just reviewed this case, and while I was inclined against accepting it, I would have no objections to us taking it to AN. 42isthedefiniteanswer - to expand on the above, it also is worthwhile to cover why the community should take what is an appreciable risk on unblocking you (or how that risk can be mitigated). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

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. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Bri. Can someone finally decline the unblock request? It can't be granted. WP:AN is the only way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel O. Griffin

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Charles Knirsch

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Charles Knirsch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Dickson D. Despommier JPG.jpg

Hello, 42isthedefiniteanswer. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Dickson D. Despommier JPG.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Peter Hotez250.jpg

Hello, 42isthedefiniteanswer. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Peter Hotez250.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Vincent R. Racaniello.jpg

Hello, 42isthedefiniteanswer. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Vincent R. Racaniello.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:Calvin Ross.jpeg

Hello, 42isthedefiniteanswer. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Calvin Ross.jpeg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Parasitic Diseases 7th Edition.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Parasitic Diseases 7th Edition.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]