This is Bezrat's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 7 days
![]() |
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:Bezrat. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bezrat|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.
GSS
💬 05:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. -- rchard2scout ( talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
MER-C 11:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Bezrat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@ MER-C:, I firmly believe this block was done in error. You indefinitely blocked me for "likely" "spam or advertising", without any explanation or evidence so it is hard to adequately respond to this action (which I feel is disrespectful on a human level). My hundreds of edits so far have been valid and included fixing formats, updating references, article expansions, helpful page moves etc. I have never been accused of WP:SPAM or any other Wiki violation, any reviewing admin can easily check and verify this. As per WP:GAB, which states that "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent ... disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism", if a single edit I made appears to promote a subject then it can demanded that I refrain from making edits in that field before taking abrupt steps. So, if there's any listening ear I hereby state that all of my edits with no exception have been conducted with neutrally only in mind and I can explain any diff; no compensation was given to me for any edit; I just come across or pick articles that I like to improve, that is how articles all across Wikipedia are improved and created! This block was done on the basis of some assumption by just one editor, who despite useful edits has also been found to be wrong on similar occasions in the past, and was based on his own suspicion, or "evidence" that is either non existent or was fabricated (such things can easily be faked by all kinds of bad actors, and can be more telling about the accuser/ their environment than the accused), and it is harmful for the wiki-project. The tone and notability of the article GSS took down are good and every editor knows this. Whatever the decision may be, this attitude discourages editing, but it is a matter of principle and I ask to be unblocked, even though I don't wanna stay much active anymore. Bezrat ( talk) 05:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You gave a long response but didn't actually answer my question- only giving one hint by saying "supposedly making one paid edit to make ends meet". If you were paid to make any edits or work for the subjects of your edits, please clearly say so. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 07:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
What is your connection with First Media? If you don't wish to be active anymore, there is no need to remove the block. 331dot ( talk) 08:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment regarding the decline by @ 331dot:, I have answered it, I was not paid to do anything, and deny the accusation made by one single user @ GSS:. GSS, please explain your claim clearly, or retract it if it's possible that your source was fabricated or faked. I was blocked unfairly in an empty ruling. Why are you doing this? Bezrat ( talk) 19:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
While I am technically unable to edit, I am still willing to improve Wikipedia articles and pages, report vandalism and more, and will use this space now to make useful edit suggestions.
This is Bezrat's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 7 days
![]() |
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:Bezrat. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bezrat|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.
GSS
💬 05:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. -- rchard2scout ( talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
MER-C 11:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Bezrat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@ MER-C:, I firmly believe this block was done in error. You indefinitely blocked me for "likely" "spam or advertising", without any explanation or evidence so it is hard to adequately respond to this action (which I feel is disrespectful on a human level). My hundreds of edits so far have been valid and included fixing formats, updating references, article expansions, helpful page moves etc. I have never been accused of WP:SPAM or any other Wiki violation, any reviewing admin can easily check and verify this. As per WP:GAB, which states that "A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent ... disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism", if a single edit I made appears to promote a subject then it can demanded that I refrain from making edits in that field before taking abrupt steps. So, if there's any listening ear I hereby state that all of my edits with no exception have been conducted with neutrally only in mind and I can explain any diff; no compensation was given to me for any edit; I just come across or pick articles that I like to improve, that is how articles all across Wikipedia are improved and created! This block was done on the basis of some assumption by just one editor, who despite useful edits has also been found to be wrong on similar occasions in the past, and was based on his own suspicion, or "evidence" that is either non existent or was fabricated (such things can easily be faked by all kinds of bad actors, and can be more telling about the accuser/ their environment than the accused), and it is harmful for the wiki-project. The tone and notability of the article GSS took down are good and every editor knows this. Whatever the decision may be, this attitude discourages editing, but it is a matter of principle and I ask to be unblocked, even though I don't wanna stay much active anymore. Bezrat ( talk) 05:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You gave a long response but didn't actually answer my question- only giving one hint by saying "supposedly making one paid edit to make ends meet". If you were paid to make any edits or work for the subjects of your edits, please clearly say so. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 07:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
What is your connection with First Media? If you don't wish to be active anymore, there is no need to remove the block. 331dot ( talk) 08:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment regarding the decline by @ 331dot:, I have answered it, I was not paid to do anything, and deny the accusation made by one single user @ GSS:. GSS, please explain your claim clearly, or retract it if it's possible that your source was fabricated or faked. I was blocked unfairly in an empty ruling. Why are you doing this? Bezrat ( talk) 19:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
While I am technically unable to edit, I am still willing to improve Wikipedia articles and pages, report vandalism and more, and will use this space now to make useful edit suggestions.