User talk:Joedirosa

Welcome!

Hello, Joedirosa, 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! MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--BEFORE YOU LEAVE ANOTHER MESSAGE==

I checked the pages for New York Artist Series and Joe DiRosa and the only history of me making and edits to those pre-existing pages was while I was trying to clean up the presentation.. The New York Artist Series page has been around since 2009 and none of the edits or page creation had anything to do with me. The Joe DiRosa page has been around since before that I believe but apparently from the records someone recreated it back in 2016.. I'm not sure what happened there .. The changes i made were cosmetic in nature and since this is my public image you have posted on here I don't see the problems since the pages were not done up to today's wiki standards.. Now perhaps I should have had a friend make the edits but FunPlusSmart seems to be trying to be vindictive which is definitely against wiki policy.

Oh 3rd thing is I went to go look at the draft for Onox, Inc. and saw a Create Page button instead of the submit article button.. I thought wiki upgraded my account to be able to edit so i made the page and removed the draft.. Once it was pointed out to me that the page shouldnt have been made I returned to the draft version so it could be authorized by whoever does that in the wiki community. For some reason I seem to be under attack.. For some reason this guy has this conspiracy theory which the history of these articles he is attacking proves isnt true.

I know you are frustrated with my actions. But please remain civil, and assume good faith. The AFC reviewer said the same thing about the Onox article that I did. funplussmart (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- --> The comment the reviewer left was:

No in-depth coverage, no independent sources, no evidence of notability. Reads like an advert.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Onox, Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Onox, Inc., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joedirosa! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Onox, Inc. has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Onox, Inc.. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Elena Matei has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Elena Matei. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD voting

Hello! please note you can only !vote once in an AFD. You should be careful about repeatedly forcing your point, as you are the article subject and doing so over and over again can distract from objective analysis of the article and its notability. It can also be considered as disruptive editing, so if it continued, you could have your account blocked. Just letting you know how it works around here. The voice of the article subject is really discounted as you are not objective-- you have something to gain. just relax and let the discussion play out, as it is highly unlikely that the article subject can influence things much. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Joe DiRosa. funplussmart (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Your account has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Elena_Matei.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joedirosa:, Wikimedia Foundation policy requires editors to disclose any paid editing. Are you currently being paid by any organization to create articles or do any other editing on this site? funplussmart (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Elena Matei has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Elena Matei. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a possible conflict of interest

Hello. Have you given any though to my ping (concerning possible editing with a conflict of interest or for pay) at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Elena_Matei. An answer would be welcome, and will likely result in how the multiple editors at COIN will act towards your draft articles.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your comment. Joedirosa (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joedirosa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

funplussmart (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joedirosa. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Why are you blocking me? I made an account with my own name and have been the subject to editing harassment by keyboard warriors since this whole thing started. I have literally tried to publish one page, and only once. I am being harassed for arguing with these guys..They have been on me relentlessly.. I've complained and they decided to drop my name on every complaint board they could find as harassment. This guy Funplussmart literally says he is autistic and hard to deal with on his talk page. I feel completely legitimate in creating a 2nd account to try and diffuse the situation so it doesn't escalate. It not against the terms of service, I didnt try and edit or publish any pages, I didnt remove anything without noting it and providing the necessary citations. There is not other way to diffuse the situation and they are being vindictive which is against the TOS. In fact it should be at the core of wiki's beliefs because they dont want harassment lawsuits or press. There certainly arent multiple accounts working to subvert or create some sort of disturbance in the balance of wikipedia... please advise. Joedirosa (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:SOCK at Draft:Elena Matei. Yamla (talk) 11:32, 24 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

There is evidence of sockpupetry until I was targeted by this group of editors. They are making baseless claims against my editing.. There is no way that the articles they denied are less relevant than the numerous pages Theroadislong ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong ) has made for wikipedia. There is just no way. Joedirosa (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Note to admins-- Checkuser block. 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. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:54, 26 September 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.

I've revoked TPA. Please note that this account is no longer the sockmaster. An earlier account popped up today.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]