User talk:Matilde111

May 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop coming back and spamming wikipedia. Your vandalism will be reverted every time. Attaboy (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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).

Matilde111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I work in journals, and my job requires me to promote research published in our outlets on Wikipedia. I think that is legal and allowed. Would you be kind to cancel the deletion of the updates that I have made? And, would you be kind to inform about why my updates are being cancelled? They are actually just updating Wikipedia entries and making them more informative based on new research. I have to enter about 20 papers in Wikipedia over the next week, again part of my job in the publishing house.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, nobody's job requires them to promote anything on Wikipedia as it's against the rules you agreed to when you signed up. In addition, "new research" from a non-reliable source fails the verifiability requirement. If you are related to the entity, you have WP:COI, and should not be editing topics where you have such Conflict. And finally, WP:EL#NO would probably apply (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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).

Matilde111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What do you mean by "unreliable sources" ? The articles I am highlighting in relevant entries come from known academic journals AND they serve to add to the body of knowledge on on Wikipedia. I would appreciate your clarification and if you remove the block, I am not spamming...just enhancing the knowledge on Wikipedia.

So, what is wrong if I updated a relevant entry by saying Recent research provides a robust support for the claim that business regulatory reforms are good for economic growth.

Decline reason:

my job requires me to promote research published in our outlets -- you may not do that, period. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Your employer will have to find another place to promote this research. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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).

Matilde111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

ah I see...I am sorry. We did not know. Then, we will just update the encyclopedia without promoting the research, if you kindly allow.

Decline reason:

Per below, no. At this point, with three straight unblock requests denied, I would strongly suggest to any future reviewing admin that, if you continue to make this sort of unblock request, your talk page access be revoked as you would just be wasting our time. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

,

May I ask what edits/updates you plan to make? Wikipedia is not a professional platform whatsoever, nor are accounts thereupon intended for use by groups/organizations. Is there anything you, personally, as an individual, would like to work on here? If not, I don't think you're going to get much use out of this site, unfortunately. - Vianello (Talk) 20:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this individual made another spam account during the interrum in order to continue his vandalism: [1]. I don't buy that he works for any organization. He is only citing one author, presumably himself. Attaboy (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)