User talk:Neiltyson12

This is Neiltyson12'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: Abhineet Maini (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Does not appear to meet the notability guideline for academics. Their Google Scholar profile does not show any citations. There are no secondary sources cited.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abhineet Maini and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neiltyson12! Having an article draft 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! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abhineet Maini (October 30)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Extraordinary Writ was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Too soon for notability under either the guideline for academics or the general notability guideline.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abhineet Maini (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Also see Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abhineet Maini and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingenuity: - looks like they ignored your COI advice and posted an identical article at Abhineet Maini. I'll post a reminder. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abhineet Maini for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abhineet Maini 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/Abhineet Maini 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.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spiderone.

I understand your concern about the referencing of the election to The NAS, India of Abhineet Maini.

I will add reliable references to the page once they become available to the public. As far as I know, they are in the publishing process.

I only created a page in his name because he is becoming quite a big deal right now in the Scientific Community. I Hope you can respect that. Neiltyson12 (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that they are in the publishing process? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is primarily because Abhineet announced on his Instagram page about how these independent Media Outlets have been involved in readily reporting about who he is and what he is doing.

He even took names of different News Companies, and that is exactly it.

Also, I just took a look at Vocal’s publishing policy. It looks like you have to be approved by a set of moderators for your article to go live on the platform. So, please correct your verdict on the source analysis on the AfD page.

Thanks Neiltyson12 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abhineet Maini (January 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spiderone was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Abhineet Maini instead.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abhineet Maini and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello Neiltyson12. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Abhineet Maini, 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:Neiltyson12. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Neiltyson12|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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spiderone!

I understand your concern, but I’m not being paid to do this. I’m simply a fan of his work, and do genuinely believe he deserves a Wikipedia page.

So, if until the time that I do include some reliable references onto this page, you could stop with the AfD process, I shall be greatly appreciative.

Thanks Neil Neiltyson12 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neiltyson12. 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.

--Blablubbs (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2023 (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).

Neiltyson12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn’t aware that I couldn’t contribute to a discussion using multiple accountsNeiltyson12 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) What utter nonsense. You were deliberately trying to give the impression that several different people were posting. That was deliberate dishonesty, and expecting anyone to believe that it was all an innocent misunderstanding is ridiculous. (2) As you know full well, it wasn't just a question of "[contributing] to a discussion using multiple accounts"; it was also trying to disrupt a discussion by falsifying an editor's post to give the impression he had said something very different from what he had said, by removing content of the discussion to try to hide it, and by removing the notification about the discussion from the article. Again, deliberate dishonesty. Did you think that we were all stupid enough not to see what you were doing? And when you posted this unblock request, did you think the administrator who reviewed it would be an idiot? JBW (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2023 (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.