User talk:Stump1990

Welcome!

Hello, Stump1990, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --92.40.141.137 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Stump1990. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your connection to boxstat.co

Please disclose your connection to boxstat.co. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boxstat Disclosure

My name is Dan and I am part owner and 1 half of Boxstat. I have replaced some dead links with Boxstat ones but only when they are relevant, and will continue to do so if this is allowed. In my view this wouldn't be spam as I am improving the pages by getting rid of dead links with good relevant links. I never go to articles and add links in only ever replace dead links. Forgive me if I am wrong in thinking this. I have also replaced dead links with other relevant sources that are not from Boxstat when I have managed to find a relevant source.

October 2019

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stump1990. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stump1990. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 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).

Stump1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As stated on the Sock Puppetry page I hadn't realised that I had a personal account when I started the Boxstat account. I think it got blocked straight away and not realising what I was doing wrong I started the other which also got blocked. I haven't used either Boxstat accounts in ages as I only use my personal account now after realising I had it. I've also been informed that its best not to post links directly to something I'm associated with even if I feel it is an improvement by replacing a dead link so I won't do that any more either. I may not do any more editing anyway but I wouldn't mind my account unblocked so at least I have the option in the future if i require to do so. --Stump1990 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:52, 25 October 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.

Syntax fixed: " {{tlx|" removed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While undoing the previous replacements per WP:BLOCKEVASION, I have stumbled upon Special:Diff/904650618, in which a (now working!) Washington Post link was replaced by the unreliable reference. Stump1990, even if you may disagree about the harmfulness of other replacements, you may like to explain why this specific edit was a very bad idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been working when I checked it. I replaced it because it was broken and the statement said "The fight ended in the eighth round via KO after Solis' second knockdown of the round" which our page would have backed up that comment because it clearly shows the fight ended in the 8th round via KO. I thought that would be acceptable but as previously stated I have probably misjudged this. --Stump1990 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry, I don't want to rub this in excessively. My concern is about editorial oversight. I'll add one more diff to show that exactly the same issue (with a now-working link, too) has happened in Special:Diff/747163351 under your current username too. A published newspaper reference replaced by a self-published source... replacing unreliable references by similarly unreliable references is one thing, but this seems to be on a level that even unaffiliated editors would be warned/blocked for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again my reasoning would have been the link wouldn't have been working at the time as I would only search for dead links. "On May 25, 1980, Scott had his first professional loss, an upset in which he was defeated by Jerry "Bull" Martin" the dead link was referencing that so I figured that we have a page which backs that statement up. Again I thought I was doing right. You could literally put every link up here I changed and I'm fairly confident I could give you good reason for why I did it and the way I looked at it. I honestly did it with good intention, yes to get a few back links for my site but at the same time I thought I was adding value by replacing dead links with what I thought were valuable links as I know our pages are extremely informative. I get the point that I was wrong to think this but like I said it was done with good intentions, and myself and my mate who runs the site are two genuine hard working people. It annoys me when this happens because that wasn't my intention. So just do what you need to do. I may get unblocked I may not but I won't carry on. I just wish that when I was first blocked ages ago the person would have had the decency to reply to the message or email. Then I wouldn't have carried on and would have known where I went wrong, and would have saved all this time wasting. --Stump1990 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]