Hi Francesco espo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.. Please do not write articles about you or groups you are heavily involved in. Do not use Wikipedia for advocacy - that is not allowed either (we're not twitter), and suggests, along with your promotion of the lab leak, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, i created that content only as a supporter of the Drastic team, i'm not a component, so i don't think that any COI is involved in this matter. -- Francesco espo ( talk) 14:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Francesco espo, even if you are a member of DRASTIC, you would still be welcome here on Wikipedia. I have reverted RandomCanadian’s blanking of Drastic Team and I would support inclusion in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, but I will leave that in the capable hands of Jtbobwaysf and Bakkster Man. Pinging ToBeFree, DGG and Barkeep49 to oversee proceedings. Tinybubi ( talk) 19:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'll do my best! Francesco espo ( talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The page has gone in speedy deletion because I used the same sentences of my website. I infringed the copyright of myself. I removed those sentences and contested the speedy deletion. If you need evidence I'm here! Francesco espo ( talk) 20:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
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 Drastic Team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.laboratoryleak.com/drastic/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
As I've written in other pages, the content is mine, laboratoryleak.com is my website. In any case i deleted that content. Please remove the violation! Francesco espo ( talk) 10:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Team until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Welcome here and gratulation that your new article wasn´t delete. Maybe you should have a look on this discussion and this discussion. We have a simple classification problem, specially because some editors brand all statements, even scientific studies, scientific statements which want investigate the laboratory hypothesis (or find results) supporting a conspiracy theory (= like china KPC !) and filter out many relevant informations. This group represents more or less a dogmatic fring position and applies our rules in a wrong way. Many editors and administrators are therefore frustrated. But we look for a solution. Greeting -- Empiricus ( talk) 08:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Francesco espo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello, Francesco espo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
Per [1] you are the author of [ https://www.laboratoryleak.com/ ] and thus have a clear conflict of interest regarding the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Please follow the instruction above to disclose your conflict of interest. You may find Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations to be helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
What can I say? My website is totally ad-free, I wrote of an argument who I'm passioned for! What kind of coi is that? If you write a book on apes you can't edit apes on wiki? I think it is the same with a website! I have no affiliation with Drastic but i admire their job. It's enough? If you have questions write and I will answer. Francesco espo ( talk) 10:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon, thanks for all these informations. I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do. I'm just a regular guy from Italy with a bike and i have no intention of causing any disruption here, if i post on the origins of covid it's because it's a personal "passion". I want really come to the end of this question, if it will ever be possible, even if it will go in the opposite side of my way of thinking. Any tie that i have with Drastic and researchers of the field exists only for my personal research. When i critic sources, it's because of phenomenons like this [1]-- Francesco espo ( talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:ToBeFree, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You've been warned of the discretionary sanctions, and you've been warned about making this kind of personal attacks. If this continues, if you keep treating Wikipedia as a confrontational debating society where you can try to promote a viewpoint with complete disregard for the site's policies, you can expect to get treated in consequence. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 21:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)ToBeFree can you give me the link of the post where i've been incivil? I'm curious to read that.-- Francesco espo ( talk) 21:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I apologize if I was too strong in tone, but you administrators, tell me, do you find it conceivable that someone changes a post after 7 seconds (so without having clearly read it)? I will be wrong to say that <<he made a fool of himself>>, but you, please, moderate this type of behavior because I do not think they are admissible in a place where people are committed to try to give as much voice as possible to the elements they have deemed reliable and someone without reading remove them. -- Francesco espo ( talk) 21:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree thank you. -- Francesco espo ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all guys for your wise suggestions, I will try to implement them as much as possible. Francesco espo ( talk) 16:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
If and when something doesn't go the way you wanted, before you appeal to Jimbo, my suggestion would be to read Wikipedia:Appeals_to_Jimbo and especially the section re: The Wrong Version™ carefully.
Such arguments are not always as persuasive as you may like them to be... Often the best and most persuasive arguments involve direct quotations (that are not quote mined), direct uncontroversial applications of WP:PAGs, and reasoning that is steel-manned such that others cannot help but concede to some of your point, even if they continue to resist agreeing to all of it. Just friendly advice from me to you about how to best frame your arguments.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing you already know what edit warring is, so I'm leaving you a personalized message rather than a warning template. You are repeatedly re-adding a POV template to Nicholas Wade knowing full well that there is no consensus for including it. Nothing at WP:TAGGING justifies this behavior, and indeed the issue was recently settled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tagging_ettiquete. I ask that you please self-revert in the interest of collegiality rather than forcing others to revert you. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You clearly know enough about the subject to know that this edit was unacceptably one-sided and in flagrant breach of WP:BALANCE (by giving a slanted, one-sided view on the matter), as a look on the whole section about this exact matter at Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Reactions (an article with which I have no reason to doubt you are also familiar) will show. If you wish to keep editing this topic area, I suggest you take extra care in the future to make sure you avoid this kind of problematic edit. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) There was no violation here. Please WP:AGF. Francesco espo ( talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Since July your only activity on Wikipedia has been to promote. You have also admitted to having a conflict of interest, owning a promotional website on the same topic. Please note that you are very close to being reported as not being here to build an encyclopedia ( WP:HERE) and for soapboxing ( WP:SOAPBOXING). — Paleo Neonate – 04:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Francesco espo, I'm currently not active in the COVID19 topic area nor currently interested in becoming active there again. I uphold existing protections and may very rarely add one when I see an immediate need, but that's about it. If there's a need for unprotection, I'm sure the community will one day agree on removing the sanctions from this area. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Regarding your edits to Alina Chan. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Francesco espo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC) |
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.. Please do not write articles about you or groups you are heavily involved in. Do not use Wikipedia for advocacy - that is not allowed either (we're not twitter), and suggests, along with your promotion of the lab leak, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, i created that content only as a supporter of the Drastic team, i'm not a component, so i don't think that any COI is involved in this matter. -- Francesco espo ( talk) 14:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Francesco espo, even if you are a member of DRASTIC, you would still be welcome here on Wikipedia. I have reverted RandomCanadian’s blanking of Drastic Team and I would support inclusion in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, but I will leave that in the capable hands of Jtbobwaysf and Bakkster Man. Pinging ToBeFree, DGG and Barkeep49 to oversee proceedings. Tinybubi ( talk) 19:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'll do my best! Francesco espo ( talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The page has gone in speedy deletion because I used the same sentences of my website. I infringed the copyright of myself. I removed those sentences and contested the speedy deletion. If you need evidence I'm here! Francesco espo ( talk) 20:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
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 Drastic Team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.laboratoryleak.com/drastic/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
As I've written in other pages, the content is mine, laboratoryleak.com is my website. In any case i deleted that content. Please remove the violation! Francesco espo ( talk) 10:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Team until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Welcome here and gratulation that your new article wasn´t delete. Maybe you should have a look on this discussion and this discussion. We have a simple classification problem, specially because some editors brand all statements, even scientific studies, scientific statements which want investigate the laboratory hypothesis (or find results) supporting a conspiracy theory (= like china KPC !) and filter out many relevant informations. This group represents more or less a dogmatic fring position and applies our rules in a wrong way. Many editors and administrators are therefore frustrated. But we look for a solution. Greeting -- Empiricus ( talk) 08:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Francesco espo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello, Francesco espo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
Per [1] you are the author of [ https://www.laboratoryleak.com/ ] and thus have a clear conflict of interest regarding the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Please follow the instruction above to disclose your conflict of interest. You may find Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations to be helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
What can I say? My website is totally ad-free, I wrote of an argument who I'm passioned for! What kind of coi is that? If you write a book on apes you can't edit apes on wiki? I think it is the same with a website! I have no affiliation with Drastic but i admire their job. It's enough? If you have questions write and I will answer. Francesco espo ( talk) 10:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Guy Macon, thanks for all these informations. I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do. I'm just a regular guy from Italy with a bike and i have no intention of causing any disruption here, if i post on the origins of covid it's because it's a personal "passion". I want really come to the end of this question, if it will ever be possible, even if it will go in the opposite side of my way of thinking. Any tie that i have with Drastic and researchers of the field exists only for my personal research. When i critic sources, it's because of phenomenons like this [1]-- Francesco espo ( talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:ToBeFree, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You've been warned of the discretionary sanctions, and you've been warned about making this kind of personal attacks. If this continues, if you keep treating Wikipedia as a confrontational debating society where you can try to promote a viewpoint with complete disregard for the site's policies, you can expect to get treated in consequence. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 21:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)ToBeFree can you give me the link of the post where i've been incivil? I'm curious to read that.-- Francesco espo ( talk) 21:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I apologize if I was too strong in tone, but you administrators, tell me, do you find it conceivable that someone changes a post after 7 seconds (so without having clearly read it)? I will be wrong to say that <<he made a fool of himself>>, but you, please, moderate this type of behavior because I do not think they are admissible in a place where people are committed to try to give as much voice as possible to the elements they have deemed reliable and someone without reading remove them. -- Francesco espo ( talk) 21:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree thank you. -- Francesco espo ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all guys for your wise suggestions, I will try to implement them as much as possible. Francesco espo ( talk) 16:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
If and when something doesn't go the way you wanted, before you appeal to Jimbo, my suggestion would be to read Wikipedia:Appeals_to_Jimbo and especially the section re: The Wrong Version™ carefully.
Such arguments are not always as persuasive as you may like them to be... Often the best and most persuasive arguments involve direct quotations (that are not quote mined), direct uncontroversial applications of WP:PAGs, and reasoning that is steel-manned such that others cannot help but concede to some of your point, even if they continue to resist agreeing to all of it. Just friendly advice from me to you about how to best frame your arguments.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing you already know what edit warring is, so I'm leaving you a personalized message rather than a warning template. You are repeatedly re-adding a POV template to Nicholas Wade knowing full well that there is no consensus for including it. Nothing at WP:TAGGING justifies this behavior, and indeed the issue was recently settled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tagging_ettiquete. I ask that you please self-revert in the interest of collegiality rather than forcing others to revert you. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You clearly know enough about the subject to know that this edit was unacceptably one-sided and in flagrant breach of WP:BALANCE (by giving a slanted, one-sided view on the matter), as a look on the whole section about this exact matter at Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Reactions (an article with which I have no reason to doubt you are also familiar) will show. If you wish to keep editing this topic area, I suggest you take extra care in the future to make sure you avoid this kind of problematic edit. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) There was no violation here. Please WP:AGF. Francesco espo ( talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Since July your only activity on Wikipedia has been to promote. You have also admitted to having a conflict of interest, owning a promotional website on the same topic. Please note that you are very close to being reported as not being here to build an encyclopedia ( WP:HERE) and for soapboxing ( WP:SOAPBOXING). — Paleo Neonate – 04:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Francesco espo, I'm currently not active in the COVID19 topic area nor currently interested in becoming active there again. I uphold existing protections and may very rarely add one when I see an immediate need, but that's about it. If there's a need for unprotection, I'm sure the community will one day agree on removing the sanctions from this area. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Regarding your edits to Alina Chan. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)