Welcome!
Hello, Nottoohackneyed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called
Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{
help me}}
on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!-- Biografer ( talk) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Nottoohackneyed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Appleton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Investigation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jackals (2017 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackals (2017 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TalkMe ( talk) 09:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
01:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Nottoohackneyed ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I find it unfair that I am being banned. I only have one Wikipedia account and have contributed to the Wikipedia community. I asked you to compare my contribution to Wikipedia [1] to the other accounts mentioned in the investigation [2]. You will notice two things: A) my account has been around for months while the others in the group were rather new. b) I have contributed to Wikipedia while the other accounts have contributed very little if at all. I understand that the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion ended up being very controversial [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery] if you check my history you would see this is not the first time I contributed to a deletion discussion and that those deletion discussions did not have any of the other accounts in question. Nor have any of the accounts that have contributed to the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion edited any article I have contributed to. My account seems to be linked to the other accounts through a single article the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion we all participated in which is just one of several deletion discussion I participated in. How is this evidence of Sock Puppetry? I respect Wikipedia's policies but I don't think I have been in violation of any of them and look forward to contributing to Wikipedia in the future. Nottoohackneyed ( talk) 05:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have examined your editing history, including deleted editing, and I have seen numerous pieces of evidence which together strongly suggest undisclosed paid editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:28, 9 March 2018 (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.
Nottoohackneyed ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous person to review my unblock request JamesBWatson said I am being blocked because I failed to disclose paid editing, but the notice under the ban says meatpuppetry. It my understanding that meatpuppetry is when one person operates multiple accounts for the purpose of deceiving Wikipedia. The only relationship my accounts have with the accounts in question [3] is a single article Deep Eddy Vodka.
According to that admin JamesBWatson I am banned because of "numerous pieces of evidence which together strongly suggest undisclosed paid editing" yet I was never asked for such information nor knew I was required to disclose such information. Wikipedia states that one is prohibited from editing (a.k.a. banned/blocked from Wikipedia) if they cannot disclose paid editing: "Paid editors who cannot disclose their employer, client, and affiliations are prohibited from editing." [4] Yet I feel like I am being banned not because I'm not willing to disclose but because I did not know I was supposed too. This ban would be more understandable if an admin asked me about paid editing and I either told them I could not disclose or ignored them. I also want to point out that I feel like most of the articles met Wikipedia notability guidelines either because they have won an award or/and made a significant contribution to their field [5] and I would like to point out that after I published the article most of them were found to be within the scope of Wikiproject Bio.
In terms of discloser here it is. After I completed an article, I would try to contact the subject of the article. Sometimes they would request further edits such as providing a picture, additional info, etc. Sometimes they would provide some type of compensation which typically would be trivial (i.e. a CD or Book). Please let me know if you want more information or want me to be more specific. AS you can see I am more willing to disclose this information and I feel it unfair that I'm being banned without even given a chance to disclose.
I also feel it unfair that the article about Nancy Appleton [6] that I contributed to but did not write was deleted. The person who deleted it stated they did so because it was created by a bad user in violation of the ban. If you review the history of the article you would see that all work done on the article was done before the ban on my account started. This is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy.
Finally, I find Wikipedia a wonderful opportunity that allows ordinary people an opportunity to contribute to a database of knowledge and would like to continue to contribute. That being said I would like to continue with wikipedia. How long does this ban last? Am I allowed to create another account.
Nottoohackneyed ( talk) 06:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No relevant answer to my question after seven days.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:11, 19 March 2018 (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.
In order to help any administrator new to the case to have an overview of the situation without lots of searching, and also to indicate my own opinion on the case, I offer the following comments. @ TonyBallioni: as blocking administrator you may like to respond to my comments.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jose R Costa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose R Costa until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. scope_creep ( talk) 16:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Nottoohackneyed ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please view last unblock request and their corresponding comments. Reason for my failure to respond was that waiting for you guys to respond. @ Anthony Bradbury: I'm sorry I did not respond in seven days I was actually waiting for a response from you. I thought I clarified my self and answered your questions. Did you not view the comments? If still not clear can you please let me know? Nottoohackneyed ( talk) 04:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Further evidence that has been discussed in private makes it crystal clear that you are not telling the truth. I am revoking your talk page access accordingly to stop you wasting more time. SmartSE ( talk) 22:23, 22 March 2018 (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.
promptly
Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment. I'll ping Smartse as he was the admin who filed the SPI so he's aware of this unblock discussion, but I felt the need to more fully explain my rationale for the block to the reviewing admins. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Nottoohackneyed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called
Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{
help me}}
on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!-- Biografer ( talk) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Nottoohackneyed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Appleton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Investigation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jackals (2017 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackals (2017 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TalkMe ( talk) 09:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
01:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Nottoohackneyed ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I find it unfair that I am being banned. I only have one Wikipedia account and have contributed to the Wikipedia community. I asked you to compare my contribution to Wikipedia [1] to the other accounts mentioned in the investigation [2]. You will notice two things: A) my account has been around for months while the others in the group were rather new. b) I have contributed to Wikipedia while the other accounts have contributed very little if at all. I understand that the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion ended up being very controversial [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery] if you check my history you would see this is not the first time I contributed to a deletion discussion and that those deletion discussions did not have any of the other accounts in question. Nor have any of the accounts that have contributed to the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion edited any article I have contributed to. My account seems to be linked to the other accounts through a single article the Deep Eddy Vodka deletion discussion we all participated in which is just one of several deletion discussion I participated in. How is this evidence of Sock Puppetry? I respect Wikipedia's policies but I don't think I have been in violation of any of them and look forward to contributing to Wikipedia in the future. Nottoohackneyed ( talk) 05:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have examined your editing history, including deleted editing, and I have seen numerous pieces of evidence which together strongly suggest undisclosed paid editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:28, 9 March 2018 (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.
Nottoohackneyed ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous person to review my unblock request JamesBWatson said I am being blocked because I failed to disclose paid editing, but the notice under the ban says meatpuppetry. It my understanding that meatpuppetry is when one person operates multiple accounts for the purpose of deceiving Wikipedia. The only relationship my accounts have with the accounts in question [3] is a single article Deep Eddy Vodka.
According to that admin JamesBWatson I am banned because of "numerous pieces of evidence which together strongly suggest undisclosed paid editing" yet I was never asked for such information nor knew I was required to disclose such information. Wikipedia states that one is prohibited from editing (a.k.a. banned/blocked from Wikipedia) if they cannot disclose paid editing: "Paid editors who cannot disclose their employer, client, and affiliations are prohibited from editing." [4] Yet I feel like I am being banned not because I'm not willing to disclose but because I did not know I was supposed too. This ban would be more understandable if an admin asked me about paid editing and I either told them I could not disclose or ignored them. I also want to point out that I feel like most of the articles met Wikipedia notability guidelines either because they have won an award or/and made a significant contribution to their field [5] and I would like to point out that after I published the article most of them were found to be within the scope of Wikiproject Bio.
In terms of discloser here it is. After I completed an article, I would try to contact the subject of the article. Sometimes they would request further edits such as providing a picture, additional info, etc. Sometimes they would provide some type of compensation which typically would be trivial (i.e. a CD or Book). Please let me know if you want more information or want me to be more specific. AS you can see I am more willing to disclose this information and I feel it unfair that I'm being banned without even given a chance to disclose.
I also feel it unfair that the article about Nancy Appleton [6] that I contributed to but did not write was deleted. The person who deleted it stated they did so because it was created by a bad user in violation of the ban. If you review the history of the article you would see that all work done on the article was done before the ban on my account started. This is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy.
Finally, I find Wikipedia a wonderful opportunity that allows ordinary people an opportunity to contribute to a database of knowledge and would like to continue to contribute. That being said I would like to continue with wikipedia. How long does this ban last? Am I allowed to create another account.
Nottoohackneyed ( talk) 06:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No relevant answer to my question after seven days.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 19:11, 19 March 2018 (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.
In order to help any administrator new to the case to have an overview of the situation without lots of searching, and also to indicate my own opinion on the case, I offer the following comments. @ TonyBallioni: as blocking administrator you may like to respond to my comments.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jose R Costa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose R Costa until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. scope_creep ( talk) 16:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Nottoohackneyed ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please view last unblock request and their corresponding comments. Reason for my failure to respond was that waiting for you guys to respond. @ Anthony Bradbury: I'm sorry I did not respond in seven days I was actually waiting for a response from you. I thought I clarified my self and answered your questions. Did you not view the comments? If still not clear can you please let me know? Nottoohackneyed ( talk) 04:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Further evidence that has been discussed in private makes it crystal clear that you are not telling the truth. I am revoking your talk page access accordingly to stop you wasting more time. SmartSE ( talk) 22:23, 22 March 2018 (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.
promptly
Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment. I'll ping Smartse as he was the admin who filed the SPI so he's aware of this unblock discussion, but I felt the need to more fully explain my rationale for the block to the reviewing admins. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)