User talk:42isthedefiniteanswer

Welcome to the AMA!

Hello 42isthedefiniteanswer, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel which reports new cases to us, and also new alerts. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out WP:AMARQ, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocates talk page, including our coordinator, Steve Caruso. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Peter Hotez250.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Hotez250.jpg, which you've attributed to Peter Hotez. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Parasites Without Borders for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parasites Without Borders 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/Parasites Without Borders 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. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello GeorgeTopouria. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Calvin Ross, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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:GeorgeTopouria. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=GeorgeTopouria|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. Template:Z159 Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae!, thank you for the message. Could you clarify if building up a Wikipedia profile by doing free work falls under paid-contribution? I can understand if non-monetary expectations in the future are construed as qualifying as a form of payment in itself. Please advise. I am ready to put up any notice that would demonstrate to that. GeorgeTopouria (talk)

Nomination of Calvin Ross for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Calvin Ross 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/Calvin Ross (2nd nomination) 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. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.  MER-C 18:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

42isthedefiniteanswer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Could someone explain in detail what this is about? Not sure how writing an article about a rapper is a bannable offense.

Decline reason:

You will need to explain your relationship with said rapper. – bradv🍁 18:31, 22 April 2020 (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.

Speedy deletion of Draft:Parasitic Diseases

If this was the first article that you 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.

The page Draft:Parasitic Diseases has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – bradv🍁 18:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

42isthedefiniteanswer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I follow underground hip-hop scene and as I've got nothing useful to do in quarantine, I offered a few artists whose tracks I've been mixing such as 2c's and Ross if they wanted me to make a Wikipedia article for them. I haven't asked for any reimbursement but I may potentially be doing so for future edits if I build a solid Wikipedia profile. It currently stands to a measly 600 edits.

Decline reason:

This appeal does not appropriately address your paid editing or conflict of interest. Wikipedia prohibits covert advertising. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2020 (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.

Please read and heed wp:coi and wp:paid. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you've done some promotional editing. Please read User:Deepfriedokra/promo for information on how to not edit in a promotional manner. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note I'm inclined to remove extended confirmed status for the sake of thoroughness, though I suppose the question is moot. I'll leave it. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

42isthedefiniteanswer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have never received any form of payment for any of the edits carried out with this account. After reviewing the guidelines on Conflict of Interests, I acknowledge I should have instead initiated a Draft of said articles instead of going directly to publication, and with further review I also acknowledge having inadvertently cited two obscure references. I should have known better in that regard. My intentions, as noted above, were to build up a Wikipedia profile and kill time while at home. I understand now both paid editing and conflict of interest and will follow those rules meticulously.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have never received any form of payment for any of the edits carried out with this account. After reviewing the guidelines on Conflict of Interests, I acknowledge I should have instead initiated a Draft of said articles instead of going directly to publication, and with further review I also acknowledge having inadvertently cited two obscure references. I should have known better in that regard. My intentions, as noted above, were to build up a Wikipedia profile and kill time while at home. I understand now both [[WP:PAID|paid editing]] and [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and will follow those rules meticulously. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have never received any form of payment for any of the edits carried out with this account. After reviewing the guidelines on Conflict of Interests, I acknowledge I should have instead initiated a Draft of said articles instead of going directly to publication, and with further review I also acknowledge having inadvertently cited two obscure references. I should have known better in that regard. My intentions, as noted above, were to build up a Wikipedia profile and kill time while at home. I understand now both [[WP:PAID|paid editing]] and [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and will follow those rules meticulously. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have never received any form of payment for any of the edits carried out with this account. After reviewing the guidelines on Conflict of Interests, I acknowledge I should have instead initiated a Draft of said articles instead of going directly to publication, and with further review I also acknowledge having inadvertently cited two obscure references. I should have known better in that regard. My intentions, as noted above, were to build up a Wikipedia profile and kill time while at home. I understand now both [[WP:PAID|paid editing]] and [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and will follow those rules meticulously. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This is not credible. Deepfriedokra, since you had even considered privilege revocation, yet have not declined the appeal here yet, perhaps your input could be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I asked that they read and heed PAID and COI and they say they did that. Had not known about current unblock request. Could make unblock conditional on WP:TBAN for all the subject's with articles deleted for G11 or as adverts, but how would one sift and sort? How would one know w/o a user declaration about COI/PAID editing about each edit? Could one make a safe assumption in the absence of a declaration? Some PAID editors actually contribute constructively. Most are too ingrained in their promospeak training to do so. There has been a lot of promotional editing from this user. Any article creation would need to be via WP:AFC and extended confirmed status would need to be removed. User claims to have not taken any form of compensation whether in-kind, good-will, or monetary, under the broad interpretations of WP:PAID, but means to seek compensation once they have a proven track record? Squeeze it all dry and shake it out-- I say do not unblock 'cause user is editing to build stock in trade for their business. They are creating a good will product in hopes of later compensation. I will defer decline/accept to those who have time, focus, and depth of thinking to make a considered opinion based on talk page discussion and relevant policies, based on the principle of net benefit to Wikipedia. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As stated, I am ready to put up a notice on my profile that I am seeking to build up a Wikipedia profile for potential paid editing. I have not, however, noted that my editorial intentions are solely based on building stock in the business. I may or may not even pursue this. Also I'd rather have a practice of open statements of interests rather than policies that push said people into more complex, harder-to-catch covert activities. GeorgeTopouria (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Parasites without borders logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Parasites without borders logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Fake sources?

Please explain. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to said links, gives me a "Permission error". But I'm guessing it's a link to one of the hip-hop blogs. If that is so, I have done an extremely bad due diligence on verifying the trustfulness of said source. I reviewed it after the article was flagged and I agree it was extremely negligent on my part. I had quoted the part about the musician's inspirations from early childhood and didn't take the time to verify the site as it seemed at first glance to be trustful. Again, this was entirely my fault. I wasn't complacent in fabricating or setting up said source and t̶i̶m̶e̶s̶t̶a̶m̶p̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶(Just realized there are three sources in total: one is from 2016 and two are from April 2020, so I'm not sure if this argument of mine on timestamps stands as credible). GeorgeTopouria (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi 42isthedefiniteanswer,

instead of modifying the content of messages, please consider removing them entirely. If I understand the situation correctly, you would like to abandon your account similar to courtesy vanishing?

The closest we can offer to that is removing everything except the declined block appeals. The block notice can be removed, everything can be removed – just the two declined reviews have to stay per WP:BLANKING.

If you would like to request this, please say "remove all content that can be removed" below. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, no, at this point I have not decided to abandon the account and am seeking to appeal till the last instance. I have simply completely removed a few sections on my talk pages due to cluttering and privacy issues. 42isthedefiniteanswer (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)