User talk:Qwykrtechsupport
August 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm Notfrompedro. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Fermi paradox 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. Thanks. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the laws of your country. No legal threats were made.
What you are doing here is not very customer friendly. I don't know a single company which does things the way you do. And don't tell me it is because you guys are short of cash. Have you ever seen Microsoft embarrass people who help with its open source work this way?
I don't know what you are trying to do here. I have no idea why you are so hell-bent on embarrassing someone when they just tried to improve your encyclopedia which appears to be built by volunteers. I was just trying to help you as a volunteer, and you appear to be trying your best to embarrass all of us. I pretty much reject all your conclusions and will have to get approval before I can continue this discussion. I am only a Support person, and was told to update this article. I am even okay for you to write the whole thing yourself. And I would have liked to be told politely what to do. As such, your lack of civility is discouraging. I don't know how to get you guys to stop embarrassing us, since, at this point, we need to figure out if we should spend any of our time talking to you guys at all. You guys probably know a heck a lot more about the law in the United States than we do, but still, you seem to consider it okay to just embarrass someone. This makes me reluctant, of course, to ever contribute monetarily to Wikipedia. This I will certainly never do until you resolve this embarrassing situation. But beyond that, I have no idea why you are refusing to accept any evidence whatsoever. Also, you have blocked me. That is super-embarrassing also. I have been told that you guys need to find a way to stop embarrassing our employees. Otherwise, we cannot afford to talk to you any more. That would be downright stupid of us. You could easily continue down this track and continue embarrassing us further. Plus, you have not even seen the paper or the economic model. Hey, I just thought I would make an edit, and it is blowing up like this. It is not even clear how the average person is supposed to go about editing your precious encyclopedia. I am happy to apologize. Just tell me what the heck the average user is supposed to do. And don't tell me that we are supposed to post first of all on Teahouse, before we start making edits elsewhere? stop embarrassing us, and just make your site more user friendly. You guys do your work while we do ours. We don't want to spend a lot of time on this. Just let us get on with our work, and please reverse as much of this as you can.
I think you owe it to us to tell us how to delete the publicly available messages you have posted on Wikipedia. That is number one. Second, if we have the time, we might spend a bit more of our employees' time trying to fix this encyclopedia article. But, frankly, you have not been very civil. And we could easily have done all this via email. Doing this whole thing publicly is just stupid. That tells me that your organization is probably dysfunctional in some way. IN that case, I am not going to work with you guys. Dysfunctional organizations are often dysfunctional in numerous ways.
Also, frankly, we are going to tell our friends also not to make ANY donations to Wikipedia. Why waste time on a bunch of people who are basically set up to serve only their own interests?
- Whether you donate or not and/or encourage others to donate or not is your decision; donations or withholding donations have no impact on day to day operations. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, not us editors, and used to operate the computers Wikipedia is on.
- You used the potential of legal action to influence a discussion; that is considered a legal threat, you don't have to say (hypothetically)"I'm going to sue you" or "I'm going to the police". To be unblocked you will need to unequivocally withdraw any and all legal threats and agree to pursue any grievances you have using established Wikipedia processes. You will also need to propose a new username that is not that of an organization, and only a single person should have access to and be using this account.
- I'm not sure what makes you think that what you were told was any more than just the opinion of the user making the statement. This is a project to write an encyclopedia with volunteer editors, not a company. If you wish to be unblocked, please follow the instructions in the block notice below to make a formal unblock request. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will add that we cannot stop you from pursuing legal action in the judicial system of your country if that's what you want to do, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly, nor can you edit while you have a legal action underway. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, we will have to look into all of this. Please do understand that we will be trying to allocate time to look into doing all the items you have told us. We actually will.
We actually don't want to make trouble for you guys, and, as for me, I generally wish people well. I am still unclear as to how to go about doing all the things you are telling us to do. As in I have no real legal expertise on these sorts of topics. I will have to think about this a bit more. I understand that the opinions expressed were those of just the user making the statement. Honestly, I don't know who is a user, and who is an admin. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia. Maybe one of those people was a troll. I don't know. Is it okay if I make a list of the things you have asked us to do right now, and leave it at that for now? I will forward said list to management, and ask them for their help in terms of what to do going forward & how to do those things. If they have time to spare, they will try and do everything you tell them to do. If not, then maybe some items will get done and some may be not. And hey, we are not your enemies. Any way, that is all that I can saying think of right now. My first question - any suggestions on how to unequivocally withdraw "any and all" legal threats? What language should I use? Any suggestions there? I don't want to say anything that will make the situation worse, lol.
One thing I can do right away is to propose a new username. Here is a new username: "333dot" - ignore the double quotes. I have no idea what standards you guys use but if 331dot works, then I am sure 333dot also would work. (If that fails, then "333dog".) Okay, so I got that done. For writing legalese, I will have to go through the channels, get approvals, et cetera. Does 333dot work? Are you the approval person? If not, please let me know who I should forward this to in order to get approval.
- If you need to ask others how to handle this matter, that's up to you, but I'm not sure what management is going to do for you- you are the one that needs to be sitting at the computer making the edits and decisions. If others at your company attempt to edit for you, they will likely be blocked as meatpuppets. Regarding what you need to say, simply make a statement that has the effect of unequivocally withdrawing any and all legal threats in an unblock request; please scroll to the bottom of this page and follow the instructions to make an unblock request. You will also need to propose a new username that represents you as an individual. You do not need to use your real name, just something individualistic. If you want the name of your company as part of your username, that is permitted, such as "John of Qwykr". You will also need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is not a good idea for you to choose a new username that is similar to another, if at all possible. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, here is another proposal. "Hoosier333" - without the double quotes. Does that work? I was supposed to propose a username and that is what I have come up with. As I understand, it refers to someone from the state of Indiana - just a random thing I came across on the web today. Does that work? I have got to get going now. I cannot spend too much time on this. I will try & see what I can do about the rest. Let me try & submit something withdrawing my supposed legal threat. I can see how that can be a thing for you guys.
I am posting something below. I don't know where exactly this is supposed to be posted. Let me try doing something here... Hmmm...where is the block notice on my Talk page? It doesn't seem to be there. Any way, hope this text helps you kick off your process in terms of unblocking me.
'''''legalese:'''''
I do not wish to take any legal action whatsoever against Wikipedia for the incidents of August 17 2021 and August 18 2021 (IST). (Please note that it is 12:02 AM in India and so the new day has already begun.) In fact, I was never intending to make any legal threats from the very outset. It is unfortunate that it was interpreted that way.
'''''My comment on said legalese:''''' Yo, that is what I came up with. I used the word "whatsoever" to make it unequivocal. Also, a second choice of username: "Choochoo333". I don't know if the term Hoosier is offensive to people from Indiana, people from adjacent states, to people from Canada (Native Americans from Canada), to people from Mexico (Native Americans from Mexico) and what not. As I understand, that is also a thing in the United States. That username refers to a choo choo train. If that is also offensive, then it is back to the drawing board for me.
Please don't take this the wrong way. One thing I don't understand is how can the opinions of random people on the Internet be taken to be at all equivalent to the opinions of members of a society in which no one has an IQ below 120, and which includes people who have achieved the M.D. degree, the J.D. degree and even for one member who is a Member of the Order of the British Empire, quite a few more accolades, to put it modestly? How much more exalted a company do you actually need? Even the average journal in China Studies probably doesn't have a group of people this exalted, and these people would be quick to point out flaws. So there is certainly reasonable reason for us to post this to this page. The ultimate question is: after all this, is it fair to embarrass us like this? There has got to be a better way.
The current system works well for you guys, but it is not really working well for us. One idea would be to get portions of this magazine published online, but all that seems so superfluous and, besides that, magazines are not going to just change their publication policy for the benefit of people on the Internet who we don't even know. I hope this does not come across or seem like me twisting your arm or boasting (boasting on behalf of those people). All I want to say is that there is no reason for anyone to boast because nobody else can see these comments and, as for arm twisting, this is not that. I am just trying to offer some thoughts. Maybe we can just create a mailing list and discuss this in a civil fashion? Maybe we can just discuss things over email where we offer substantive arguments addressing the topic at hand and not comments which reflect nothing more than the commenters' own biases. Not to say that those commenters on Wikipedia are not smart (this has nothing to do with smartness.) It is just that it is hard to see how they could have so much certitude. Other than opinions, what exactly are they offering? It doesn't sound like they have even read the paper. Here is where the paper lives & SSRN is where it can be downloaded from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3809937 All in the interest of transparency. This is just to establish again that we have reasonable reason to post this on Wikipedia. Or do you think this is not the case? If so, why not? At the end of the day, we just don't want to be embarrassed like this.
- Wikipedia articles aim to summarize the majority and significant minority views on subjects as verified in published, reliable, independent sources. An article by a non-physicist published on a pre-print server and in a magazine for people with high IQs does not meet the bar for inclusion in Fermi paradox. If that paper is ever published in a professional, peer-reviewed journal and gains signficant attention in the scientific community, then it may be worth mentioning in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
'''''next response:'''''
I just noticed a comment about intention to promote. Why do you think there was an intention to promote? (Apparently, if you phrase your disagreement in the form of a question, it indicates openness and the other party supposedly tries to be more reasonable. I don't know if ti is true, but someone on the Internet said it was.) There was no intent to promote anything. As discussed, the aim of this was to disseminate scientific information. You cannot simply claim that what you think are our aims are actually our aims. We are wasting our time talking to you. Talking to Wikipedia is not anywhere related to our line of business. I literally cannot think of anything more preposterous than this allegation. Do you guys even know what you are talking about?
Now, as for promotion, which product or products of Qwykrtech have been promoted? Who gains promotion out of this? And how come one guy gets a citation without a ny result but for simply arguing that the Fermi Paradox is not really a paradox and is not really by Fermi? It is astonishing how you are just wasting the time of our employees, and continue to make totally baseless allegations. When it is not one thing, it is something else.
Our position is the same. There was no intention but to disseminate scientific information. Whether the article is right or not does not seem to even enter your calculations. Nobody was offering the article on SSRN as proof of anything. It was there just to show you the contents of the article. Also, SSRN is not a pre-print server. SSRN is "a platform for the dissemination of early-stage research." What is frustrating is that there are essentially repeated allegations thrown about without any attempt to understand what is going on. It seems like all we are doing is trying to help Jimmy Wales get a five figure or six figure salary while basically having offering our labor input for free. So, I am going to advise my friends to also NOT help Wikipedia out it in any way, even b way of volunteer effort. We don't really care for your American influence in India, and you have no legitimacy here as far as I am concerned.
The copy of paper available on SSRN as well as the paper on Termite were mentioned for what reason? Especially, the former one. To advance the argument that we had reasonable reason to post this reference. How is your argument a reasonable argument when the paper on SSRN was not even used to make the case that this stuff should be on Wikipedia.
A valid social scientific model needs to be simply verified. The sort of requirements you make are not reasonable. At this point, I don't think this is about what is reasonable. This is merely about you forcing us to waste our time and effort here. Nobody is trying to get famous here. I don't know what made you get this weird idea. And if you have anything more substantive to say about the paper besides "I won't read your paper" , I would like to hear it.
- Wikipedia is not for merely disseminating information. If you just want to tell the world about your information, you should use your preferred social media outlet. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
'''''next response:'''''
Where was an attempt made at promotion? What product of Qwykrtech, according to you, is being promoted?
The position being taken is that a reasonable attempt was made at ascertaining whether this was a reasonable outlet. Now, if you determine that it is not, then that is fine. All I can say is that, in return for our time, you should pay us at our billing rate. This is not an aggressive stance. If you bring up us doing promotion again, I will bring up our billing rate again. That seems fair. It is a fairly non-violent and non-aggressive way to counter various allegations. Because - trust me - it is possible to make allegations all through the night and I could be doing nothing but this. Any way, so if you bring up promotion, I suppose it is reasonable for me to bring up free labor and billing rates.
If you could at least tell me what is bring promoted, that would be nice. Because now that you have said that something is being promoted and that stands as an allegation, the least you could do is to clarify the allegation.
Something about this just doesn't smell right. When people are reaching so much just to make an allegation, there is usually something else going on. My feeling is that you guys are forced to use the Wikipedia platform itself which makes things more weird. A few emails could settle all this in a few minutes. "Hey Qwykrtech! That article's edits should not have been made", "Okay, Wikipedia Editor, what you say is fine. We may not agree, but if that is your position, that is fine. Now, please, let us get on with our work." Two or three emails is all this should take.
Am I advertising something? What am I advertising? Our services to help you lose weight? If so, are you referring to the vegan diet or the keto diet?
You are parasitic on the work of others. You are parasitic on the work of researchers. You are parasitic on the work of scientists. You are parasitic in that you are using other people's fear of embarrassment to further your own organizational goals.
- You're close to losing access to this page if you don't stop the walls of text. If you don't understand how you were being promotional, or decline to address the reasons for the block, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
'''''next response:'''''
No, I don't understand how I was being promotional. Can you please explain?
I know exactly what is going on. I have an A.I. to help me figure this out. And its output couldn't be more unequivocal. I am not helpin gWikipedia ever again in any way. You cannot force me to change my mind. What other issue needs to be addressed? I have told you to simply remove all text.
What product of Qwykrtech has been promoted? This whole episode smacks of racism.
- I don't know for certain what your race is and that is not germaine to this. Since you aren't going to help us again, nothing more needs to be said. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Your username
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Qwykrtechsupport", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".
Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Also note that unless the most sensitive personal information is involved, Wikipedia matters are handled on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Qwykrtechsupport (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not intending to make any legal threats. I have made a statement stating unequivocally that I am not going to be taking any legal action against Wikipedia for the incidents of August 17 2021 and August 18 2021 (Indian Standard Time). Qwykrtechsupport (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Okay, thank you for removing the tip of the iceberg. I guess one could insist that the statement should include "Wikipedia nor any of its contributors", as the community likely wasn't concerned about legal disputes between you and the encyclopedia itself or the Wikimedia Foundation. But there's a deeper underlying issue here, and I'll address this by removing the block, and replacing it by one that addresses the main remaining problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2021 (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.
My comment:
I do not wish to take any legal action whatsoever against Wikipedia for the incidents of August 17 2021 and August 18 2021 (Indian Standard Time).
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)- (if you appeal this, please do take a moment to clarify if you will take any legal action against contributors to Wikipedia. It may seem redundant, but it technically isn't, and that ambiguity should be resolved at the same time as the advertising concerns.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Qwykrtechsupport (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not intending to make any legal threats. I have made a statement stating unequivocally that I am not currently planning to take any legal action against Wikipedia or its contributors for the incidents of August 17 2021 and August 18 2021 (Indian Standard Time). (Good legal judgement would dictate that I don't sign away my legal rights in any way. I mistyped earlier. This is the latest text. I don't plan to spend any more time on this topic unless I get management approval. Thanks, and have a good day.)Qwykrtechsupport (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Reviewing this conversation, and the one at Talk:Fermi paradox, makes it clear to me that we are being trolled. Talk page access revoked to prevent any more time wasted on whatever this is. In case I have this totally wrong, WP:UTRS is available for appeals. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:42, 17 August 2021 (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.