User talk:Thatwhoiswise

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Thatwhoiswise, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Composite bearing has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 can, but please follow the steps in 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) 00:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Engage:BDR

Hello Thatwhoiswise,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Engage:BDR for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to Brian Anderson (skateboarder) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Electronic Recycling Association

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Electronic Recycling Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bilby (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Electronic Recycling Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electronic Recycling Association 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/Electronic Recycling Association (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Nik thestunned 11:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. There are still problems you need to address

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Too many of your references are interviews with the company or press releases, which matters because many are supporting opinions rather than facts
it's all about what the company sells, little about the company itself other than its location. To support notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. For all we are told this could be two men in a shed
In general, it has a promotional tone. Positive opinions are presented as facts, for example ref 10 is supporting These acquisitions will help engage:BDR gather more data about its user, and provide exclusive ad placement making them one of the biggest players in the advertising industry., but it's again just repeating what the company has said, not independent analysis
You have an honours and awards section, which itself looks spammy as a separate section, but no criticism or any indication that the company is less than perfect
If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. In particular, if you have a financial interest, directly or indirectly, 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:Thatwhoiswise. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Thatwhoiswise|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure

A couple of style things. Heading should follow normal text capitalisation rules; prose is better than lists (and looks less spammy since lists are invariably used for so-called awards an honours); I think you may have meant "uninterested", not "disinterested".

In general, to establish notability and avoid deletion as spam, you need more financial and other facts, and less repeating of the company's self-promotion. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HFCS edit

Hello. You said: I am trying to understand why you deleted by contribution to this article. Is it because it was too detailed and read like a journalism piece. Thatwhoiswise (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I stated in my deletion. Please see WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Also be careful about WP:COPYVIO. We can discuss further here on your Talk page if you wish. --Zefr (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at HFCS. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe my edits were disruptive and I did the best to address the concerns you mentioned can you please elaborate on what you find to be disruptive and non-constructive edits, thanks
You stated "That wasn't 'removal'; you re-added the same edited content." That was not true, I removed some of it and rewrote other parts of it.

Thatwhoiswise (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the history of the article and your Talk page, one would see that this edit and its explanation challenged the editorializing of the content you provided, a position reinforced on your Talk page. Then you returned today to reinstate the same over-explained information which I edited to be more concise. Again with this edit, you wrote over my input with basically the same information, which I claim is disruptive and the early stage of WP:WAR. The article under Manufacturing contaminants is fine now. Please move on. --Zefr (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information added today was toned down and more clear it provided LESS data both quantitative and qualitative. The second time I reworded things and eliminated even more. I was trying to address issues and not be disruptive.

When you rewrote this you stated "used in a process that produces traces of mercury" and then omitted the study by the scientist and left the study by the Corn Refiners Association.

The process does not produce mercury but mercury is used in the process. and I would like to mention within the article. The two studies that looked into this. Can we work to come up with something that short and sweet that we can both can agree on.

Thatwhoiswise (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a further edit with new references. In reviewing the literature, I believe the mercury issue is satisfactorily addressed and referenced as now presented. Further, with the White and FDA references added, the section now has better neutrality. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tolerance Rings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Upon trying to utilize Wikipedia I receive notice that my account was abusive and has been blocked. I believe this block stems from my recent context dispute with Zefr. I had on multiplication occasion I had tried to add context regarding the possible mercury contamination of High-fructose corn syrup. Most of those edit have been reverted by Zefr even though they were backed Scientific journals. I have tried to resolve the issue on Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup and then on the Wikipedia admin notice board it was there that I was referred to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. On this notice board I asked for advice but have made no changes to High-fructose corn syrup since March 16. : Upon viewing my talk page it stated “You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts” it did not elaborate on this much. I’m guessing that you believe that I have created another account to further state my case Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The reason I posted in that notice board is not to make a case or call out or accuse Zefr of wrong doing but to receive help. I believe my contribution to High-fructose corn syrup was positive, neutral and reliable. But Zefr action told me no, so I went seeking a help from other writers in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I would like to respond to my posting in the RS notice board and well continue my contribution to High-fructose corn syrup and try to come to a consensus with Zefr. : In general my contribution to Wikipedia has been positive, I have edited countless articles and even created a few. I have added to the diversity of Wikipedia by contributing to minority areas such as LGBT, African American and women studies. I thank you for taking the time to review this and look forward to being able to contribute to the diversity of Wikipedia. Can you tell me what step I must take in order to do this. Thatwhoiswise (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thatwhoiswise (talk · contribs), Thelosthistorian (talk · contribs), and Freethemindfull (talk · contribs) have been editing in violation of Policy. —DoRD (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ok I see this has nothing to do with the High Fructose Corn Syrup Page. Let me explain my reasoning for what I did. I had a lot of ideas for Wikipedia articles and they fell into different categories: Science and technology, Culture and history. As I started writing these articles (some of them i'm still working on) I felt that the user names should reflect the category. "Thatwhoiswise": key word "wise", "wisdom". This one was for science and technology. And that reflects the edits that I have made. "Thelosthistorian", key word is historian, history. This one was going to cover article that I would write or contribute to articles that have to do with history. and I believe I did. Finally "freethemindfull" mindfull is the key word here, like mindfull around ones culture. This one was going to be about culture and art. My goal was to have different user names for different subject areas that way I was able to be more organized and I did not appear as someone who just contributing at random. That was my intention, but not how it worked out. I ended up using thatwhoiswise for just about everything and when I tried to get organized again, I failed and just ended up using thatwhoiswise. Maybe it was out of convenience.

It has been brought to my attention that people without good reason should reframe having/creating more than one user name. And if they do they must present their reason and cross-link their accounts. I was not aware of this rule until recently. I believe the majority of my work has been constructive adding to the great diversity within Wikipedia. It is for this reason that I ask for the user name "thatwhoiswise" be unblocked and for usernames "Thelosthistorian" and "freethemindfull" be terminated. I look forward to being able to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the near future. Thanks Thatwhoiswise (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It doesn't look like any CheckUsers are willing to unblock at this time. You can try the standard offer as suggested below, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2017 (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.

Can you explain the results here there seems to be a worryingly close overlap between the accounts editing the same articles. You claim the three accounts were for editing different subject areas but there doesn't seem to be any link (I can find) that meets the areas you mentioned to be editing in above. Amortias (T)(C) 20:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the plan was to have different accounts for different subject areas, as mentioned above. But that's not the way it ended up and appologise. I got confused, I left the browser open with one account signed in. when I thought another was signed in. I now understand why people are only allowed one account. Can you please restore "thatwhoiswise" and terminate the other two for all my edits in the past were constructiveThatwhoiswise (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a Checkuserblock I'm unable to unblock on my own but im requesting one of the two Checkusers who've responded to comment @DoRD and Bbb23:. Amortias (T)(C) 08:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An unblock request could be considered six months from now (standard offer), but I wouldn't unblock now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nahshon Dion Anderson

The article Nahshon Dion Anderson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not meet GNG as written; only mostly minor coverage in local/questionable RS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]