User talk:The Reptilian Agenda

Welcome!

Hello, The Reptilian Agenda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Draft:The Reptilian Agenda, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! /wiae /tlk 04:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The Reptilian Agenda has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Reptilian Agenda. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Reptilian Agenda (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_credo_mutwa06.htm. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:The Reptilian Agenda may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae /tlk 02:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The Reptilian Agenda, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! /wiae /tlk 02:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello The Reptilian Agenda, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:The Reptilian Agenda 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 a cited source. 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. /wiae /tlk 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Reptilian Agenda (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

There are multiple problems with this draft, even now that blatant copyright violation appears to have been cured. The name of the author and the name of the draft are the same, which implies that the submitting account is promotional. The draft is inadequately sourced and is promotional.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Reptilian Agenda and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Robert McClenon, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is against Wikipedia's policy: an account is for an individual, not a group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service.

The editor has 3 other accounts which I blocked recently as socks. If you look at this version of the talk page for Nevets20[5] you'll see ". I then put in a change name "request" [ACC #164445]". When I blocked I knew nothing about this, and he/she still hasn't mentioned the other 2 accounts User:Nevets3 and User:Nevets4. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Oh, good grief. All I could see was a username hardblock. I didn't know anything about this either. Do you want to reblock or should I? Katietalk 16:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Never mind - I reblocked as the sock master since you tagged the others that way. Katietalk 17:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks, but I'm still confused. If he did ask for a request and got it, there's no indication and I don't know where to look, but if that was all I'd unblock. It's the other 2 accounts. Anyway, he's deleted his appeals, etc. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I put it in the unblock log - UTRS #15326. He claimed he was making an article about a film of the same name and that he was inexperienced, so he simply named himself after the film. I AGF'd and all that but I didn't know he was a sockmaster. Katietalk 17:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Ok, thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked this account (per UTRS appeal) for a username change. Follow the instructions at WP:CHU as soon as possible, or the account could be reblocked. Katie^talk 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 17:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is because i originally made an error calling myself "The Reptilian Agenda" the same as the article i wished to create. I then attempted to appeal and request a new username and i found the process extremely difficult. I managed to get to a department that took my request for a new username and i requested to be called "Nevets20". The unblock appeal number sent to my email address was "Response to unblock appeal #15326". I still have the emails between myself and Wikipedia regarding this matter, and on the emails i ask wikipedia to unblock me and call me "Nevets20". When i originally logged in as "Nevets20" i was intitially blocked. However this block got lifted and i was able to edit. It was not me that lifted the block and allowed myself to edit there for i have not illegally used a sockpuppet, as i was allowed to do this, and the person that allowed me to do this must have known i was The Reptilian Agenda, as it is same URL, and i already told wikipedia this on the email conversation which i still have copies of. Have i done something wrong? Why is my block lifted and then added again one hour later? there seems to be so many admins that dont know the full story dealing with this that what was a very minor issues is now becoming a mountain out of a mole hill. Can we please have some clarity, go back to the start when i was Reptilian Agenda and i tried to request to be unblocked and have a new username, and i appeared to have been awarded "Nevets20". Why was my request on email to be named "Nevets20" apparently accepted if i was not allowed to use the account for editing? if i was not allowed to use the account for editing then why was i not blocked from editing? By law, i dont even think that a Court would allow a person to be called a Sock when the location the made the sock account is from the same URL as the other account. To be using a sock puppet in order to deceive, i would have to be using a different URL. Therefor i even argue that in actual fact, by legal definition, "Nevets20" was not a sockpuppet account as it is quite clear by the fact i was using same URL i was not trying to deceive. Especially given the fact ontop of that, i already held email communication with wikipedia reuesting to be called "Nevets20" and the username "Nevets20" became unblocked, cements my case that i was in no way whatsoever trying to deceive. If you require copies of email conversation of "Response to unblock appeal #15326", then i can.(Nevets7 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

Below in the link next to my username Nevets20 is my reason }}(Nevets7 (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)). http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7430[reply]