User talk:UCLAPhdCandidate

File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inertial Labs moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Inertial Labs. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and it appears to be undisclosed paid editing, submit through WP:AFC after making proper disclosure. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello UCLAPhdCandidate. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Artlist, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:UCLAPhdCandidate. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=UCLAPhdCandidate|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. I should have left this here earlier. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a paid editing disclosure on my page since my first edit.. Did you not check before you posted this message and just assume?UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I saw that. So where exactly do you "disclose your employer, client and affiliation" for each of your paid tasks, as is required under our Terms of Use? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well up until this project I had only worked on a single page so it was pretty evident. TBH, I was initially told to make sure I used a paid tag on my profile.. no one said anything about the whole daisy chain of info.. I am more concerned that you are attacking me and telling me not to edit like I was trying to hide that it was paid editing when I have blatantly put it on my page. Your response also doesn't address the reason you gave for unpublishing the draft? You claimed advertorial after a number of editors have all contributed to the page. No one had any issue with the notability and articles with advertorial tags remain published for years.. they are rarely ever unpublished in less than 3 days without an opportunity to improve the article. I am trying to work to fix the issue so it can be published.. Again, can you tell what part of the article you have issues with as so advertorial it had to be unpublished? If there is noting wrong then you just basically telling me you unpublished the article that half dozen people have worked on, just to have another move it back into the published space? You see I have the disclosure and had only worked on a single page so I am curious if the issue is just the disclosure why I wasn't just asked to update you user page and why the article was subject to unpublishing without contacting me? I am not sure what the procedure is but this doesn't seem collaborative, it seems like utilitarian control. I will update my user page appropriately. I appreciate your answers on the article. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm "basically telling" you is that you are obliged to comply with the WP:Terms of Use and with our paid-editing policy, and that until just now you were not doing so. I have just no idea why we tolerate paid editing in this volunteer project, but we do, within certain limits. One of those limits is that paid articles should be submitted for independent review through the articles for creation process, so I reverted your move of this to mainspace. You have not made a single useful mainspace edit since you started editing, so I'm going to block you from that space. You can request an unblock once you've shown that you understand the limitations on what paid editors may do here. And no, I'm not "attacking" you, I'm trying to show you how to abide by our policies and guidance. Please remember at all times that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind, and that promotion-only accounts are routinely indefinitely blocked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can you block me for non disclosed paid editing when they are clearly on my page? This is abhorrent behavior from an administrator of any kind. I have done nothing but ask you continually about why you moved this page under the guise of the article being promotional? Regardless of your personal feelings on paid editing, it is allowed. I am glad you have detailed it here and made it so obvious that this is discriminatory harassment. I met all your requirements about disclosure and instead of just telling me what about the article you moved into draft, with notes detailing that it was advertorial as one of the reasons, you decide to block me for complying and asking how to fix the article you move into draft as editorial!! WTF!! If you didnt actually read the article and just moved it, say the article seems to be fine and I was just using the referring to the notice at the top when I made the notes. You seem to have some sort of fiefdom of rights because you troll every new page that is published to make sure it meets your personal standards of wikipedia regardless of what other editors have done on the page? Now you are tagging my page with blatant lies saying I was blocked for undisclosed editing .. I think perhaps you need a break and to realize billions of people have access to this platform. I didnt start this aggression and if you have some opinion that I did, then I apologize. Either way this is unacceptable. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No the admin isn't harassing you. Please just follow all the rules, not just one rule, for paid editing and you'll be fine.

Don't get frustrated with individuals who tell you how things are. You may have promised your client something else but that's your problem not Wikipedia's.

The block is limited to mainspace. Just practice in draft space. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can you block me with a tag that says undisclosed paid editing when by his own admission the tags are there? I can't imagine if I wouldn't be able to link to a page where that is strictly forbidden. All I have been asking him is what he found advertorial? BoyTheKingCanDance remove thousands of characters of advertorial language and unreferenced material, then left the article published. He approves the 3rd most pages of any admin/editor on this platform. If justlettersandnumbers is moving the page under the guise that it is advertorial, after another editor has done a ton of editing, I would think I would be able to ask 1) what he still finds advertorial and 2) how to bring it into compliance from his opinion since he was the one who moved it and put advertorial in the notes. I am tired of this requirement of being subservient to editors who are editing fast just to pad stats and can't explain their actions.. Then chose to retaliate rather than explain or admit they didnt really do the required due diligence. It is a blatant abuse which senior editors do to newer editors and it is wrong. He never once after I asked 3x explained that, instead he decided to try and blow the whole unpaid editing thing out of proportion, focus on it and block me rather than just answer what on the page he still finds advertorial. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also he blocked me from editing the main space when by his own comments I only worked on one other article and never have participated in any disruptive editing?UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud

Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation;
With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;
Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and
Engaging in fraud.

So how can he say I have been doing undisclosed editing when I had disclosed it.. I wasn't trying to hide it.. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers It does seem a bit harsh to block this editor, who is clearly trying to follow the policies. He needs guidance on how to make whatever additional disclosures are needed.

He posted a paid editing disclosure, then was admonished for "undisclosed paid editing". Huh?? That is weird and counterintuitive.

Maybe he didn't do it right, but he tried. I can see why he was frustrated, but yes, he needs to follow the rules about civility. Still, he has a point. Are we helping him as much as we can? I personally don't know all of these rules, or I would givs more information. David10244 (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. He clearly leads with " it is promotional and reads like an advertisement" in his comments above. When I ask why he zeros in on paid editing instead, then I fix the tags the way he wants and he decided to ban me for UPE anyway? Another editor just left some constructive criticism on the article's talk page which I am thrilled about.. though it seems likely this editor will continue to work to project his disdain and work to impose his will over my editing.. even breaking the terms of service. I apologize for ranting. I appreciate you taking the time to express your opinion. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for undisclosed-paid and promotional editing.

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 ~~~~}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am having an issue with a harassing admin and I need help. I created a page called Draft:Inertial Labs and published the page. I have a paid editor disclosure on my page.. After it was published for about 4 days and several experienced editors worked on the page, removing thousands of characters of advertorial language, Justlettersandnumbers move the page back to draft and in the notes he put that it was because it was undisclosed paid editing and that the article was advertorial. I replied to his message asking why he labeled it undisclosed paid when I had a disclosure on my page and I asked what about the article was still advertorial that he felt the need to draft the article after several editors had already worked on it. Ive complied with everything he has asked and he won't tell me how to fix the article or what he found advertorial... Somehow this has de-escalated to the point where he is blocking me for undisclosed paid editing when that isn't the case ... I don't know how admins can use the wrong reasons they admit didnt happen as an excuse to block editors..? Any help or contact or a resolution would be appreciated.

Decline reason:

You are only blocked from Article space. If you have grievances with user conduct/admin behavior, you should bring them to WP:ANI. I would advise you against doing so, but you may. An unblock request should only address the block itself. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2023 (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.

Outside of an unblock request I am kinda curious who told you that you need "advanced Wikipedia skills" for your field- Wikipedia is not a place to do academic/scholarly publishing. See WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

There never was a problem with paid editing disclosure. I had made one page and I had a tag on my user page. All this is in the notes. This admin just has disdain for paid editing even if it is done appropriately within the tos. He blatantly says so in his comments which is extremely prejudicial for an admin.

Decline reason:

The disclosure you posted on your user page was incomplete and you published the article without going through WP:AFC as required. Apart from that, you have been casting aspersions against the blocking admin and violating WP:CIV. I see little benefit in unblocking you, considering this is just a partial block. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:26, 10 April 2023 (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.

@Salvio how does me fixing the disclosures result in a ban from editing the main space. Let me get this straight.. He is banning me from the main space for undisclosed paid editing even though I had a tag there, just not with all the additional info but, he still gets to say it is undisclosed paid editing? Even though that is posting intentionally false info against WP:TOS? I fixed the issue and he decided that after a single page I hadn't made enough main space edits so he is banning me from the main space until I learn to make more main space edits even though I am not supposed to edit the main space because I do paid editing? This is how you deal with people trying to abide by the terms of service? Admin's get to push subservience regardless of the issue or their fault? Couldn't mention one single constructive criticism for the reason he initially lists as the reason for drafting the article? He didnt read it and was just taking his disdain for paid editing out on me even though I clearly wasn't trying to hide it at all. I made one page and had a tag.. I didnt have 50 pages and was trying to hide anything. There was no deceptive or disruptive editing to result in any type of perm block. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a permanent block, it's an indefinite block. It can be lifted as soon as everything has been straightened out. That said, I have reviewed your draft and I agree with Justlettersandnumbers that it had problems with its tone; some examples of this have already been pointed out on the talk page, so it pointless to repeat them here.
  Separately, you are supposed to create new article through the WP:AFC process, to allow experienced users to review them before moving them to mainspace. Paid editing is allowed, you are right, but there are rules and limitations, because paid editors frequently end up violating some of our substantive policies (usually WP:NPOV). Now, I agree that this block was a bit on the harsh side, but I can't call it wrong under policy and, if I may be blunt, you are not helping your case here.
  I understand you are probably frustrated, maybe confused, because our policies are not exactly clear, and I can sympathise; however, accusing Justlettersandnumbers of harassing you and of being prejudiced against paid editors, just like accusing administrators of trying to oppress editors into kissing our collective arse, well, that's unlikely to lead to a satisfactory result... — $Salvio giuliano$ 10:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Literally a quote of what he said above "I have just no idea why we tolerate paid editing in this volunteer project, but we do, within certain limits. " That is an admin, Justlettersandnumbers intentionally displaying nothing but apathy for paid editing.. so much so that he intentionally bolded the statement to intentionally emphasize it. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  How does that not show active discrimination against an entire class of editors who are abiding by the rules. I didn't realize it wikipedia was a place to enforce beliefs over the TOS. How does this disdain from an admin being asked simply to explain the comments about promotional editing when moving a page to draft abide by WP:CIV? I understand we all have bad days but if you have done 133k edits, perhaps it is burnout and not the editor who had one page published fault. Perhaps this WP:Bullying behavior is a result of too much editing? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Salvio giuliano In your decline reason you wrote you published the article without going through WP:AFC as required. The TOU are silent on this point and WP:COI says that articles should be submitted to WP:AFC. Maybe it should be compulsory, but as far as I can tell it is not.
  
  Thanks for pointing out that the paid editing disclosure was incomplete. I found the claims that it was missing very confusing. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The original post by Justlettersandnumbers was likely a template and not customized/adapted to the exact situation. I guess it would be helpful if this was indicated once the template is substituted so that receiving users know that not necessarily every word was written explicitly for them. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Random person no 362478479, well, per WP:PAY, paid editors are "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" and "should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". For me, those two clauses can be summarised as a requirement for COI editors to go through to appropriate channels (namely requested edits and AfC), because even if it's not technically compulsory, the guidance, I feel, is almost as binding, because there is, effectively, a zero tolerance policy when it comes to (even unwitting/unintentional) violations of our substantive policies on the part of paid editors, as we have seen here (and elsewhere, for instance when it comes to promotional usernames, where we block on sight). — $Salvio giuliano$ 15:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Salvio giuliano I would say it makes it almost a requirement. It probably should just be made a strict requirement. That would remove any uncertainty and loophole. I feel that right now people can just say "but it doesn't say that I have to do it". I remember my driving instructor who always called the German "Anlieger frei" signs (meaning people with legitimate reasons may use an otherwise closed or non-public road) "Anlüger frei" (meaning people who lie to the police and make up an excuse when confronted may use the road). Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I apologize.. I haven't backed off, I am in PST and went to bed.. The issue with me moving the page isn't really in doubt or challenged. I did it to get help with an article I felt was already better than most needed for wikipedia to get some help bringing it down to size to be compliant. I left detailed notes in the pages history and talk page to this affect and had a paid editing disclosure on my page. In fact, this had exactly the affect that I had hoped and several editors immediately jumped on the page and began improving it, such is the intention and result of a collaborative wikipedia, as it should be. My only other article I created before this issue, I submitted through AfC and it was approved by a senior editor, the way everyone likes it to be. My issue was with him coming in without reading the article, seeing a notice at the top of the page after many editors had already worked on the page, and just randomly adding tags just to add on to what everyone else was doing. It was obvious the page had been moved by me, and several editors and admins in the spririt of wikipedia began to help me fix the page constructively. Justlettersandnumbers came along and drafted the page after it had been substantially worked on, including by a person who works heavily on the new page patrol. He added liberally added notes and drafted the article without much consideration for anyone else or engaging on conversation on the talk page of the article either. When asked about what he detailed as promotional since that was the focus of his original notes rather than COI or UPE (though UPE was mentioned), 1) he changed the focus of his actions to UPE/COI 2) escalated his individual actions against me and my pages to the point of tagging a Artlist properly created through AfC and unpaid when it too was clearly done correctly and had a notice on my talk page 3) He blocked me from editing the main space 4) He continued to refuse to add any constructive comments about the original reason 5) He tried to shape this as unpaid editing when it was absolutely nothing but the opposite. An editor who had disclosed paid editing, using Wikipedia successfully and collaboratively, the way it was intended. 6) After his retaliation, he leaves intentional notes detailing his apathetic feelings towards the entire class of paid editors, bolding his text to highlight this as the reason justifying his aggressive behavior. I find the whole thing very retaliatory, very aggressive and improper to be so narrow minded to not check and see who was working on the article, if it was improving in the spirit of wikipedia, and to check if the notes he left on the page were still appropriate. As with any editor drafting an article, he should be able to explain in some detail the reason he noted when doing so. This isn't obnoxious, it is mandatory.. Making the whole thing look like paid editing so other editors will dismiss my complaints is also a very deceptive enforcement action in my opinion. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I would like to politely suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:Wall of text AncientWalrus (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

At ANI, you wrote "It is funny that you see a new wikipedia account an assume that is the total amount of my entire wikipedia experience." Will you please disclose your previous accounts, if any? Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Inertial Labs Corporate Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize.. the article got moved to draft.. I will work on improving it..UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article) and Wikipedia) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 02:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you reposted this? Was this the subject of a vote because I had at least 4 votes in my favor, from my count it was about a tie in the vote. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice is because the block has been extended. There is no "vote" and consensus was clear the block was appropriate. If you disagree with mine,you're welcome to file an unblock however continued wikilawyering will not help. In the mean time, you're welcome to edit the draft as you have not lost access to that. Star Mississippi 02:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious where you moved that comment about not being collaborative. If you look at the history of draft:inertial labs then you will see I moved the article into the main space to get some collaboration which happened as no less than 6 editors edited the page in 48 hrs, including at least one or two admins who did significant work. Justlettersandnumbers ignored that, harped on the advertorial content which when I asked him to address, he decided to retaliate. Harping on a valid argument and calling it lawyering and unwilling to be collaborative is nothing more than WP:Bullying. Not one of you addressed the actual argument, you just get ignore it and try and force your opinion through. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see where I moved it here. I did not intend to insert it in the middle of the discussion. I have no opinion on the content, just your conduct. I highly suggest you follow Cullen's suggestions if you want to edit here. Star Mississippi 02:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit your draft to bring it into unambiguous compliance with all Wikipedia Policies and guidelines, without arguing with far more experienced editors. Then, submit your draft through WP:AFC. Any additional disruptive editing anywhere on this project including this user talk page will result in an indefinite sitewide block. So stop now. Also, answer my question above about any other accounts you may have had. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to disclose per WP:Boomerang and Wikipedia:Harassment. There are a number of editors on here including yourself who I feel might engage I retaliatory behavior and might right to privacy exceeds ay right you have to know per WP:COI. I am formally noting that I feel your demand for obedience without addressing why the TOS doesn't emphasize the rule about not main articles into the main space as strongly as not reviewing articles or other actions seems like Wikipedia:Harassment. Threatening my ability to edit while engaging on intelligent collaborative conversation in a forum designed exactly for this type of discussion. You have no right at all to make such demands as I have not made threatening statements, harassed anyone or made any disruptive edits. This is my talk page and I feel like you just openly threatened me on it. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared to deal with the consequences. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UCLAPhdCandidate seems to be laboring under the misapprehension that he or she has some "rights" here, but that is not the case. This is a private website, with rules and policies set in some cases by the Wikimedia Foundation and in most cases by the community of editors, who collectively can decide how they should be enforced. Some aspects of Wikipedia practice are perhaps not clearly outlined in policy pages, but when a consensus of editors tells an editor that things are done a certain way, long-winded arguments about what that editor feels the policy actually means are known as "wikilawyering", which is not generally approved of. If the community, or an administrator charged with representing the community, decides that an editor is behaving in a way that is not beneficial to the project, constant reference to the "letter of the law" is rarely going to change their conclusions -- it will, in fact, reinforce the editor's unsuitability for the way this project works.
You clearly value argumentation (or, rather, being argumentative), but it simply is not the way out of your situation, not here, where the path to remaining an editor is to listen to what you're being told, and to try to adhere to that advice as best you can. You are, of course, free to reject that advice, but, then again, you are also free to remain blocked from articlespace and Wikipedia space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you being intelligent and non threatening. These discussions are how real change happens. I would love to see the TOS updated with more clear and concise wording on this issue. There should be no ambiguity in the policy and I believe this discussion has been due for a decade or longer. More so now that wikipedia is actually working to coral editors into stricter guidance of the current policies. Unfortunately, I am not sure why, the TOS haven't been updated even though I am sure this is probably the 50th case this week where it has been mentioned. I certainly understand the issue but I do not approve of the policing/lawyering and inaccurately quoting the terms. I am very well familiar that editors have been working to strictly enforce this unwritten rule. I know my moving the article was unusual, that is why I noted it as such when I moved it. My previous article went through AfC and was moved by another editor into the main space. I am well familiar with the unusual move, again that is why it was noted. There was clearly a paid editing disclosure on my page.. I haven't contested the move at all or fought that it would have to go through AfC, I simply asked him what was advertorial and promotional and he went nuts!UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think it is going to be a waste of time to entertain this much further.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, at this point I doubt it is worth entertaining this type of behavior. I would ask the blocking admin to simply make it a full block based on WP:NOTHERE. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) @Star Mississippi:[reply]

Thanks for flagging @CNMall41. I was asleep, and appreciative that @Jayron32 handled it. Star Mississippi 13:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated block to full block

I think everyone has grown weary of this. I am upgrading the block to a full, indefinite, site-wide block. --Jayron 32 10:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Jayron 32 10:59, 11 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

You can actually see these editors goat me into an argument on several fronts so they can call me a trouble maker. This is ridiculous. I was even actually fixing the article which no one check. He asked me for an entire list of references last night so I posted them for him to look at. You cannot point to one disruptive edit in the main space. All this gibberish about lawyering in the chat is how exactly I was goated into this. Just tyring to shut me up by saying WP:other is nothing more than bullying someone. Everyone the first day said any block was excessive. Now I got WP:lawyered into fighting about a COI move that I never even challenged. You should all be suspended from wikipedia for WP:Gangup!! This platform is atrocious when it pretends it doesn't have paid editors and people collaborate. If it was so collaborative why the original admin got into a fight and suspended a new account for false reasons against the TOS?????? I am so sick of fighting people who can't read the rules and only manipulate them into their own vision. How is that collaborative if you cannot win an argument without ganging up on someone and addressing the wikipedia TOS? If I cannot get satisfaction here I will email the appropriate channels and note that there has not been one main space harmful edit, there has not been one attempt to mis edit on someones page and I have not done one harmful thing at all. I have a list of admins who I feel are responsible and who have thrown hate speech at me. I will also show I didnt violate the TOS and that suspending someone site wide for wp:lawyering is an unacceptable abuse of power by admins as there no place in the TOS when explaining bans where it justifies such actions against someone reporting an issue on an admin. Essentially I was banned for arguing a case editors agreed with was abusive excessive behavior by an admin.

Decline reason:

WP:GAB explains how to contest a block. Please read it before making another request. Yamla (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

"A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism" as this wasn't the case and I was actually inappropriately blocked which caused the accusations lawyering which is not disruptive or vandalism to answer peoples comments In a discussion forum. If you remove the block there is nothing to lawyer. This is gaslighting by admins grouping together, the original comments agreed the original ban was excessive. Thanks for your help.

Decline reason:

To say your block request is not persuasive would be an understatement. You will almost certainly not be unblocked while you persist in this approach. You need to grasp that continuously arguing, and making complaints, is wasting volunteers time. You will be unblocked when it appears that you will be a productive editor, which is not now. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong WP:blocking is not for silencing as per WP:nothere which everyone keeps quoting. There is no TOS which permits a block without disruptive editing per TOS "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism". I appreciate your help. PS. Let me add WP: Dont chase away productive editors!!Let me say one more thing, as a student of the law, being discriminatory to a class of people who are legally required to disclose to do their jobs and earn a living, creates a liability for the wikipedia foundation and could be considered a hate crime in many states across the country and possibly other countries. Using hate speech on editors that are legally required to disclose due to advertising laws would be considered blocking someone from dutifully obeying the law and as I said before could be considered a hate crime since paid editors seem to be a discriminated class on this platform. Someone should contact arbitration.

Decline reason:

A "hate crime" to be blocked? Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2023 (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.

I incredibly strongly suggest you remove your open unblock request. Leaving it up will almost certainly result in you losing talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

--Yamla (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Inertial Labs

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 Draft:Inertial Labs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]