User talk:CrystalBethMoonbeam
November 2023[edit]
Your edit to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. – bradv 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please be more specific as to the "illegitimate reasons" that justify the block? I am a new contributer, and was not aware that you could not quote directly from the source article, but I know that now and removed the copyrighted material, to find that I had been blocked.
- It says, above, that "persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing" - however, I did this only once and agree to not do this again. Please advise. CrystalBethMoonbeam (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
CrystalBethMoonbeam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There was no reason given for the block, other than "rv foul play: sockpuppet/master" by administrator "Drmies". I am a brand new editor to Wikipedia, and came on to provide updated revisions to an outdated article. I consulted the guidelines for wikipedia editing and followed (to the best of my ability) the guidelines. When I published an update to the article referencing "Shungite" - it got taken down with the explanation that I provided, "Pseudoscience/Poorly cited crap info" Every modification I put into the site was resourced with PubMed ID numbers. Here was my discussion on the "Talk" page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shungite "This revision was long overdue as it had a number of errors that contradicted itself. For example, it says that, "Shungite has been reported to contain trace amounts of fullerenes (0.0001 < 0.001%). In the next sentence it describes Type 1 as being between 98-100% in carbon content. This had to be fixed. Here is a reliable source regarding Shungite's Fullerene composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574306/#:~:text=The%20mineral%20percent%20composition%20includes,iron%2C%20and%200.2%25%20copper .) "Composition and visualization of shungite with mineral-less were analyzed by Energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy. The mineral percent composition includes 86.43% carbon, 0.18% sodium, 1.33% magnesium, 3.17% silicon, 1.09% sulfur, 0.22% chlorine, 0.95% potassium, 5.33% calcium, 1.06% iron, and 0.2% copper." With regards to the other information - I reviewed it and did not see circular references in my edit, if they are there, they were prior to my revision. In all of my edits, I cited Pubmed exclusively, using the PubMed ID (PMID) number for reference. In fact, Wikipedia's editor, as of this writing, would not let me enter a circular Wikipedia reference. Being that all of the edits cited reliable, encyclopedic sources, my edit is credible and all entries are notable, despite the claim that "none of that appears to be notable enough for inclusion in this article." Please provide guidance - thank you!
Decline reason:
Confirmed to MelroseReporter. Yamla (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2023 (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.
December 2023[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)- @Izno very confused. You sent me two emails simultaneously, one saying that my blocke to unblock status should be fixed, then I got this message? 2001:569:FD40:4F00:C7D0:4A4A:558E:D7F6 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)