User talk:Sbrteamrevilla

Hi Sbrteamrevilla! 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 Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

00:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Sbrteamrevilla, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Bong Revilla have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Sbrteamrevilla. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Bong Revilla, 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 (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Bong Revilla, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Sbrteamrevilla, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sbrteamrevilla|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 18:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not paid

We are not paid in looking after this page. We are avid followers of the former senator ensuring that troll armies of his opposition are not out in vandalizing his entry. Please review the changes being done by those people and actually read and translate what they are putting on his page. We removed the previous entry because the senator has been acquitted and is NOT required to return the 124M in civil liability. The court has not given the decision regarding that matter. The troll armies are twisting the facts, yet it is being allowed. They have put source citations, but even those articles do not indicate what they write up on with wiki entry. There are now screenshots of wikipedia entries with false information that is being spread throughout Facebook. At least, do not allow the trolls to leave misleading information as they are being used during this election period. bonadea GermanJoe Ymblanter

Why do you use the pronoun "we"? Are several people using the account? --bonadea contributions talk 05:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bonadea There is a community of people that check to make sure that there are no incorrect "Facts" are being put on this entry. You can see by the edit history how the opposition trolls are trying to add false information on this entry. You can see how they twist words from the source they cite. Some of the community notify me when there's false information and I edit it using this account.

I sense a possible violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Your edits appear to be removing any negative information about the article Bong Revilla. -- Namayan (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I'm Allenjambalaya. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bong Revilla have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:57, 2 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Oshwah Allenjambalaya Namayan bonadea GermanJoe Ymblanter. There is no violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since I am just stating the facts thats from the source provided by the person who added the negative information. Is it a fact that Bong Revilla is REQUIRED to return the 124M in civil liability? Wikipedia is supposed to show factual information by using cited material. To re-iterate, the cited material DOES NOT say that Bong Revilla is REQUIRED to return the 124M in civil liability. The citation says "State prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman have urged the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan to issue a writ of execution that would compel former senator Ramon Revilla Jr. to pay P124.5 million in civil liability". However the court itself has not decided on this issue. So, isnt that person who wrote that portion the one violating Wikipedia's own Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight. Read the cited material and ask your self if that statement that I removed is legit.

Decline reason:

Your edits aren't themselves the biggest issue here; you seem to be acting on behalf of this Philippine Senator and/or supporters of him which suggests that you have a conflict of interest that you have not disclosed. You need to address this in any unblock request. I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi 331dot, you say i violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for being a supporter of the senator and denied my edit in question, which is based on the two references cited by the original person who posted the incorrect information. But supporters of political oppositions are ok to put edit on the page, even if the facts are twisted from their own sources. I dont care if you block me, i'm just asking for you to actually review the information being put on the page to make sure its factual.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This is not an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2019 (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.

Someone else will review your request- though you don't seem to be requesting to be unblocked. While blocked, the only legitimate use of this page is to request to be unblocked, you cannot use it to edit by proxy. I'm not sure there is a pathway to an unblock for you without agreeing to a topic ban from Philippine politics, but that will be up to the next reviewer. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]