User talk:Sampeters321

Hi Sampeters321! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like RhinosF1 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

18:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Jeff Abraham

Hello, Sampeters321,

Thank you for creating Jeff Abraham.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

More of this article mentions what he wrote rather than who he is.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|James-the-Charizard}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Sampeters321. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Jeff Abraham, 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, 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. Thank you. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Real Sam Peters, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Jmertel23 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at The Show Won't Go On. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what is the issue?

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. It is more than obvious that you are the same individual as the now blocked Goodstory (talk · contribs) that has an obvious financial interest in promoting Kearns. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, i went through this last year.. es i was goodstory but lost the password for the account, couldnt get on and started a new one... I am NOT paidiby anyone and am not posting anything fake or promotional for a number of people I know. i correct or post FACTS... I never heard of ‘siruptive editing’ I am certainly not trying to do that. I dont mean to offend or harm anyone. and I removed a template becaus it said it could be done if isue was fixed. i thought issue had ben fixed .apologies. i donate to wikipedia and want to be part of creating this vital record. SamPeters321 is me and thats my only account. What can I do to make amends? apologies. I am NOT paid! Just home in lockdown. Thanks

Courtesy ping @Toddst1: ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burt Kearns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breaking the Ice. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that you eventually disavowed any paid editing after multiple warnings above, but I find your explanations insufficient, as your patterns of editing are highly consistent with that of paid editors, frequently feature breathless promotional prose, and in the case of Burt Kearns, overlap extensively with other accounts that have been blocked for sockpuppetry and UPE. A successful unblock request will address how you identify which topics to edit and the issues with neutrality in text you have contributed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am not being paid by anyone. Sampeters321 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not how to respond to your declaration that I am a liar, but I can assure you I am NOT being paid by anyone. I am not sure what you mean by “breathless promotional prose." All I have contributed has been factual,on a number of subjects whose work I am acquainted with or people whose work I am knowledgeable of. A number of years ago, I had an account that stopped working (I cant recall if it was a password mixup or a change in email addresses, thatled to the “sockpuppet” accusations. I stated- that I had started a new account to replace the old one and as far as I know my reputation had been cleared. I hope this can be cleared up as well, I do notwant to affect the reputations of the subjects I have written about. I have included no falsehoods. (Also my I ask, who is the jury that has excommunicated me from contributing? Is it one person who has targeted me? It is a confusing a frustrating situation to be in. Thank you.) Sampeters321 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2024 (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).

Sampeters321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have read and understand the Terms of uUse and paid editing disclosure requirements. ::I swear to God that I am not and have not ever been compensated monetarily or otherwise for my edits, and I do not have a conflict of interest, I enjoy being the first to wrote history and enshrine talents I am aware of and believe deserve it. ::In the future, I may not make any other submissions, except to perhaps add or correct a fact here and there. All my contributions shall be in the pursuit of historical accuracy. I will make sure that none of my writing aoppears promotional or breatheless. I will curb ny enthusiasm. ::Once more, I SWEAR that I am not nor have I ever been compensated for any controbutions I have made to wikipedia. The only compensation I receive is the satisfaction that I have contributed, anonymously and with accuracy, to the historic record, while helping to add more credence and authority to a forum often criticized for inaccuracies. Thank you. Your reason here Sampeters321 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Reading through this page you repeatedly make reference to your edits being "factual" and that you have made no "falsehoods". That's not what this block is about. You are creating content on a group of subjects (Burt Kearns and his projects, for example) and have a noted conflict in doing so. You even state below "How can a person contribute a subject to wikipedia if they do not know the facts abnout [sic] the person or place". Well, regular editors do that every single day through hard work and research. You also state "no one whose page I have contribued [sic] to is unworthy of inclusion in wikipedia". Wikipedia isn't about "worthiness", it's about meeting a specific set of criteria for inclusion. But all of this is moot because you evaded your block through a logged out, checkuser confirmed, edit; as such I'm declining your appeal with a pointer to the standard offer.Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 27 August 2024 (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.

You said that you had a relationship with one subject of your edits, do you have relationships with the other subjects of your edits? 331dot (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware, you can have a conflict of interest while not being compensated for your edits. --Yamla (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have relationships with the subjects... I know them or am aware of their work, some connected to others. as for a 'conflict,' no one whose page I have contribued to is unworthy of inclusion in wikipedia. nothing I added or wrote is false, and I am adding factual substance to the record, so i dont understand the targeting. i believe i am an asset to the ewikipedia team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampeters321 (talk • contribs)

Conflict of interest has nothing to do with the worthiness of including a subject in Wikipedia. It has to do with neutrality. So you were incorrect that you know the daughter of a subject of your edits? 331dot (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am acquainted wqith the daughter of one of the subjects. We do not have a relationship. She told me about her fathers accomplishments and I felt he deserved inclusion in wikipedia, which he does. She did not pay me, nor was she aware I had submitted the subject. I am not paid. I write about what I know. How can a person contribute a subject to wikipedia if they do not know the facts abnout the person or place? Makes little sense. All my work for wikipedia has been honest and adds to its factual comprehensiveness. i dont know why Roseguill targeted me or who they are. I deserve to be reinstated. Sampeters321 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article content is not based on personal knowledge, it should be based on what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic. Most articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of the subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it.

I don't understand your statements "I am acquainted with the daughter of one of the subjects. We do not have a relationship". Both of these statements cannot be true at the same time. You either know this person or you don't. The subject(or their representative) doesn't need to be aware of your contributions for you to have a conflict of interest. Having a conflict of interest does not mean that you cannot contribute about that topic, it means that you must do so with openness and transparency, according to the COI policy. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the Ice (TV series) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Breaking the Ice (TV series). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, how can I improve the text if you have blocked me. I have NOT been paid by anyone. This is what U do in my spare time, contribute to the wikipedia, just as I assume you do. I feel I have been a positive contributor to Wikipedia and am very frustrated that your accusation and suspicions are enough to ban me. I AM NOT PAID BY ANYONE. Do people actually pay for submissions in Wikipedia? Sampeters321 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are both companies and freelancers that offer Wikipedia editing services either exclusively or as part of general social media management/SEO/advertising services. These have varying degrees of reputability, and many are scams. None are endorsed by Wikipedia, and the vast majority of the community looks upon paid editing with skepticism(at a minimum) 331dot (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]