User talk:Machiavellian Gaddafi

Welcome!

Hi Machiavellian Gaddafi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cleveland, Tennessee, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, and I understand. I'll fix it before re-editing it. I do have another question though, as it wasn't just the birthplace section that was deleted. I wrote an entire section for his podcast, to reflect the wikis of others in his field, and although it was full on references, it too has been deleted. I'm paid to make these edits, and losing 350+ characters after spending multiple hours writing it is unfortunate, to say the least. Can you tell me what was wrong with my addition so I can fix and restore it as well?

Thanks!

Alan C. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 08:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Machiavellian Gaddafi. The nature of your edits 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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:Machiavellian Gaddafi. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Machiavellian Gaddafi|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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not paid or compensated, but rather contributing to the best of my knowledge. I have interest is certain areas, but this is just a hobby. That said, once I feel like I've reached the point where I COULD do this as a side job (I'm still fairly green), the first thing I'll do is fill out the form.

Thanks!

Alan C. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

"It looks like I made a typo"? It's embarrassing to read, both on this page and in the ANI thread, your transparent attempts to wriggle out of what you said, and to get your various opponents sanctioned. You have been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing and not being here to help 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 10 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I will appeal, as your reasonings are opinion based, with no evidence presented that does not eliminate any reasonable doubt. This topic has already been discussed with several administrators who choose to close that discussion. According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, smearing others with direct slander such as "embarrassing" are reasons for a warning, which I will be issuing. As it stands, I am not blocked, so you're also lying to me in a harassing manner (see Wikipedia:Harassment). Your disapproval of my purposed sanctions as one of reasons to attempt to block me also violate Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Outside of one typo, which has already been settled by others, all edits have been on good faith. According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which I strongly suggest you read/reread, four warnings are to be given before any blocking is to be done. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was resolved and I was never warned by this user before they submitted thisMachiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no requirement for a certain number of warnings, or any warnings at all, per WP:BEFOREBLOCK; "However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking". This is not a US criminal trial, we don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You here said you were paid to make edits, I don't think this was a mistake or error. It's also pretty clear that you don't understand our sourcing requirements especially when it comes to WP:BLP. This is a good block. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2022 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | tålk 10:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is appealed at UTRS, the reviewing Admmin should see the disgusting edit summary attacking editors. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Censored.TV for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Censored.TV 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/Censored.TV 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 until the discussion has finished.

Slywriter (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]