User talk:VoldemortHFT

Welcome!

Hello, VoldemortHFT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Mark Gorton did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoldemortHFT, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi VoldemortHFT! 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 Masumrezarock100 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop

Hi - you've been reverted quite a few times over content that you've inserted into Wikipedia articles. I can see it's done for a reason, but the way you're doing it is not acceptable. Just randomly inserting chunks of text as you've done at Tower Research and Mark Gorton suggests you're either pushing some personal POV, or simply don't understand how to contribute to a neutrally-written, reference-based encyclopaedic article. Please stop and think before editing further articles. Discuss issues on their talk pages if you are not sure how to proceed, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Mark Gorton, you may be blocked from editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 01:35, 25 September 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).

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

Request reason:

This a valid and verified quote from the CEO of the company and cited by a news publication. It is material to the article which is 5 years stale

Decline reason:

This implies you think the edit was appropriate. It wasn't. Yamla (talk) 02:05, 25 September 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).

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

Request reason:

read the current Tower Research page and explain to me what exactly is not appropirate? VoldemortHFT (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:21, 25 September 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.

Hello, VoldemortHFT. There are two main problems at this time. The first is that your single-minded devotion to adding this quote into multiple articles makes me believe that this is a single-purpose account and that you likely have a conflict of interest of some sort with the subject. Wikipedia has policies related to this because users with a conflict of interest have a tendency to be unable to write neutrally about a subject, judge the notability of people or companies that they are involved with, and judge whether they are giving the appropriate encyclopedic weight to their editing. The second and perhaps larger issue is that you repeatedly added this content to the same two articles about a dozen times over only a few days, despite it being reverted by multiple other users as unencyclopedic, nonconstructive, and not neutral. This is edit warring, and it is not productive. When you find your edits challenged, we expect you to step back and discuss them with the other editors, which you made no attempts to do. I will leave it to another uninvolved admin to decide on your unblock request, but a commitment to working collaboratively and a disclosure of any conflicts of interest would go a long way. ST47 (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]