User talk:Mcaserta31

This is Mcaserta31's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: MoCoSnow has been accepted

MoCoSnow, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hi Mcaserta31! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Jack Posobiec that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of MoCoSnow

/* Source RfC in lede */ The article MoCoSnow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, no independent reliable sources, only of local interest.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. R2 (bleep) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sholam Weiss

Hi,

I made those edits according to the consensus that developed on the talk page. The sources you refer to are written from the point-of-view of a public relations group, which would fall under the general umbrella of "self-published" even if the subject did not personally author the article.

Please take a moment to review wp:rs before reverting again.

Best regards,

BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for writing here. I'm not sure where you see a consensus. It looks to me like the last post on the talk page (other than yours) is from 4 years ago. Would you mind clarifying? Best regards, Mcaserta31 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed you've reverted my edits. I will not revert you at this time, but I have opened an RfC on the talk page. I will also replace the warning tags on the page to notify editors of the present RfC regarding those sources. I have already explained how a public-relations firm's release cannot be used as a fact-establishing source. I hope you will contribute there per wp:ENGAGE. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sounds good. We can discuss on the talk page. Thank you! Mcaserta31 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags from articles while active discussion is going on

Please stop removing the tags from the Sholam_Weiss article while discussion is currently ongoing and there is no consensus that the issues have been satisfactorily addressed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unfair, if the "Edit War" is an issue why am I the only person who is blocked in the "Edit War"? Also, the changes I removed included some made by someone with a personal bias against Sholam. I said that the tags can be added, but it should be done without a complete undo-ing of everything.

No it is not. You are blocked because you are edit-warring against the opinion of at least three editors. In addition, you are breaking all kinds of other rules, including that against POV-editing and that on reliable sources. In fact, you should count yourself lucky that User:Ohnoitsjamie didn't block you indefinitely: your only reason to be here seems to be some kind of advocacy. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2021 (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).

Mcaserta31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no edit-war. My suggestion was accepted; it was an issue of misunderstanding. I was just trying to undo the edits of a person with personal bias against Sholam. I allowed the editors' tags to stay. Mcaserta31 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Hmm I find it hard to believe that your "suggestion was accepted" when this was your last edit before you were righteously blocked. And that edit of course was made also here, and here, and here. It does not get any clearer than that. In addition, your personal attacks (of "bias") sound hollow. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2021 (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 believe this may be a mistake on my part for doing this incorrectly, so I apologize if that's the case. However, this was my last edit: "There were several other changes that you are undoing, including my removal of the edits made by a source with apparent personal bias against Sholam. If you just want to keep the tags even though they were addressed, please add them instead of also undoing everything else." In response, the other user did exactly what I asked, which was to add the tags without removing my other changes.Mcaserta31 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mcaserta31. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Sholam Weiss, 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. I'm not accusing you of any impropriety, but this topic may be of interest if you have any kind of connection to Sholam Weiss. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 15:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any conflict of interest. I've learned about the case on my own. I have added content unfavorable to Sholam and gotten in disputes with people who may have had a genuine conflict of interest. But I've also seen many editors with a personal bias against Sholam, and over time I've come to believe there is a campaign against him from watching the edits on the article. Mcaserta31 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you resolved it as I had suggested. Thank you. We are in agreement now with the current version of the article and I'd like to be unblocked to discuss the tags in the talkpage. Mcaserta31 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]