Jump to content

User talk:Emanresu99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emanresu99 (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 16 April 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Emanresu99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Would you be willing to unblock my account? I deeply apologize for engaging a meat puppet, and it will never happen again. I have waited more than six months since the block without any incident. Please consider granting clemency. Emanresu99 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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=Would you be willing to unblock my account? I deeply apologize for engaging a meat puppet, and it will never happen again. I have waited more than six months since the block without any incident. Please consider granting clemency. [[User:Emanresu99|Emanresu99]] ([[User talk:Emanresu99#top|talk]]) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC) |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=Would you be willing to unblock my account? I deeply apologize for engaging a meat puppet, and it will never happen again. I have waited more than six months since the block without any incident. Please consider granting clemency. [[User:Emanresu99|Emanresu99]] ([[User talk:Emanresu99#top|talk]]) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC) |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=Would you be willing to unblock my account? I deeply apologize for engaging a meat puppet, and it will never happen again. I have waited more than six months since the block without any incident. Please consider granting clemency. [[User:Emanresu99|Emanresu99]] ([[User talk:Emanresu99#top|talk]]) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Justin Miller (attorney and professor), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Information icon Hello, Emanresu99. 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 COI 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:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emanresu99, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

Emanresu99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I deeply apologize for my mistakes, and I would sincerely request an unblocking of my account. I now completely understand that involving friends and other accounts for the purposes of support and editing is completely against the rules and considered meat. I fully admit my mistakes, and you will have my personal guarantee that it will not happen again. I promise to never work on another page with TaxPapa ever again in the future. We only overlapped on one page, and I am sorry about this mess. But, TaxPapa also is trying to create some very nice pages for some notable legal organizations and attorneys--please, please, please give it a chance. Please see TaxPapa's draft pages for people like Joanne Garvey and Karen Hawkins as well as organizations like the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys. I 100% swear that I am not get paid for any of this.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time.

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.

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).

Emanresu99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for reviewing my case. Unless asked a specific question, I will not post again for six months. I fully admit to “meat,” I now understand that it was against the rules, and I accept whatever consequences that the Wikipedia community determines I should suffer. At the same time, I think it is important for the Wikipedia community to have a true and full disclosure of what really happened. The following outlines the real timeline of events, and I will do my best to disclose everything in an objective and unbiased manner. I admit to actually breaking several rules, including Meat, Conflict of Interest (COI) and Deletion, and I hope there are people within the Wikipedia community who will understand that I always have apologized for my errors and that I never broke a rule after an editor informed me of the rule. I fully admit to all of my violations, and I deeply apologize for my mistakes. Here are the facts:

  • I have been around for about six years, since 2012, and worked almost exclusively on one page. No compensation ever was received, nor will be received. Even without compensation, there still was a clear COI, and I now understand that this was inappropriate and absolutely should have been disclosed.
  • For six years, there were no incidents or issues.
  • In the middle of August 2018, I enlisted the help of a new user Wikitaxeditor for assistance on only one page. I now understand that this is “meat” and completely against the Wikipedia rules.
  • After Wikitaxeditor joined, I almost completely ceased my activities on Wikipedia. I only posted maybe one comment on one Talk page that overlapped with Wikitaxeditor. I believe Wikitaxeditor actually tried to delete the Emanresu comment on the Talk page after realizing the conflict and overlap, but an editor restored the deletion. I now understand that deletion, even of your own comment on a Talk page, is completely against the Wikipedia rules.
  • The Wikitaxeditor username was questioned as violating Wikipedia’s rules, and a new name of TaxPapa was approved.
  • TaxPapa was a clear “single-purpose account” to help improve existing articles and create records of prestigious legal organizations and notable attorneys in the United States. Attempts were made to work on many different subjects and articles, including the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and a number of notable tax attorneys (both living and deceased), including Joanne Garvey, Charles Rettig and Karen Hawkins. There was no compensation involved, and no personal relationships with any of the organizations or individuals.
  • On September 4, 2018, User 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 started a discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (COIN) entitled “Promotional articles for California tax attorneys. Really” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=858175978
  • The editor 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 addressed TaxPapa as a likely paid contributor with promotional intent.
  • TaxPapa attempted to respond to the comments on COIN, fix any and all mistakes, and learn how to better contribute to articles for prestigious legal organizations and notable attorneys.
  • The following is a cut and paste of each comment from the Contents of COIN “Promotional articles for California tax attorneys. Really” for Emanresu and TaxPapa:
    • WP:COI with promotional intent, likely paid contributors. See [42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]. For what it's worth, TaxPapa was just unblocked after a change of username--I'd request a reconsideration, given the edit history. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your helpful comments. Username was blocked because old name of Wikitaxeditor did not comply with username policies, so I switched to TaxPapa. I am new to all this and not receiving compensation, so I appreciate your understanding. TaxPapa (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @TaxPapa: I see you properly declared COI on these articles. Do you have a connection to people or organizations of other articles you created or edited? Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @MarioGom: I really appreciate your kind response to a newbie. Yes, I attempted to place a COI disclosure on Talk for all the other pages I created or edited. I am still learing about all the rules, and now understand that even knowing an individual is considered a WP:COI, even if not a friend or family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaxPapa (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This is the second time someone removed comments and dramatically reconfigured the discussion here [47]; see also [48]. TaxPapa, you can not do this. Are you working in coordination with Emanresu99, or are you using WP:MULTIPLE accounts? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 and 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Thank you for your patience as I continue to familiarize myself with all the rules. I now understand that deleting or revising even my own comments is not permitted. I had an opportunity to review the Talk page guidelines. Yes, Emanresu99 asked me to intervene on her behalf, and I do know her personally. Is there somewhere I should disclose a COI for another editor? She was feeling attacking and harassed, and does not want to be involved any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaxPapa (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd say this is MEAT. John from Idegon (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @John from Idegon: @2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: As I mentioned, I appreciate learning about the rules and procedures, especially given that I am new. I have learned that you are not allowed to delete or edit your own previous comments, even on a Talk page. At the same time, I am feeling bullied and attacked. Please be polite, welcoming to new users, assume good faith, and no personal attacks. I will attempt to do better, and would appreciate the same from you. TaxPapa (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • If you are able to cite WP:BITE, it doesn't apply to you. Try to address the issues here, rather than talk around them and blame others. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • 'Newness' doesn't absolve plagiarism, either [49]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • And I'm sorry, but no one is going to take seriously this sort of non-disclosure disclosure, variations of which which have been added to multiple talk pages [50]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I will do my best to stay cool. Please let me know--in a friendly way--the appropriate way to write a COI disclosure. If I am familiar with an organization, but not a member, not friends with a member, and not related to a member, then I would guess that should be sufficient. Would you please provide me with an example of how I could disclose better or more appropriately? Is this even the right forum for this type of discussion? Please be nice. TaxPapa (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm turning in for the night, but would offer this: you either have a conflict of interest or you don't. There's the appearance of a lot of two-stepping here, in starting out with a promotional agenda, then attempting to moderate it. Even the COI disclosures try to have it both ways. The bottom line is that you want to create articles about California tax attorneys, and will wikilawyer to get it done. Experienced editors generally don't have much patience for this, and I haven't found you to be straightforward unless pressed, which is why I've asked you not to comment at my talk page. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Finally, I think I am starting to understand. Simply the desire for an article about a prominent legal organization or famous attorney could be considered a COI, even if there is no compensation or personal relationship. If that is the case, I will confine my future comments to article Talk pages or proposed topics. I had to look up Wikilawyer, another name that I was called. It actually is a bit funny, since the first username I picked was Wikitaxeditor, which was blocked as an inappropriate username. Per Wikipedia's suggestions, I no longer will engage in this discussion. I looked up Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks, which says that "you should ignore people who attack you." TaxPapa (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • With the sarcastic interpretation above, Simply the desire for an article about a prominent legal organization or famous attorney could be considered a COI, you've chosen to mock justifiable reasons for questioning notability of some of the subjects about whom you've written. Several times now, TaxPapa, you've referred to our policies re: civility, and claim that you have been personally attacked. If that's the case, I'd recommend starting a discussion at WP:ANI and including links to specific instances in which you believe you have been harassed or attacked. These are serious accusations on Wikipedia, and if I'm one of the alleged harassers, I'll welcome a formal administrative review of my behavior, rather than the vague accusations posted here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emanresu99 -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Emanresu99 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you don't intend to edit for the next six months, there's no reason to unblock your account now. You're welcome to request another review of the block when those six months are over. Huon (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Emanresu99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have waited patiently for more than six (6) months. I now fully understand that help from a related account is considered a meat puppet and against the rules. I apologize, and it will not happen again. Would you please reinstate my account? Emanresu99 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 waited patiently for more than six (6) months. I now fully understand that help from a related account is considered a meat puppet and against the rules. I apologize, and it will not happen again. Would you please reinstate my account? [[User:Emanresu99|Emanresu99]] ([[User talk:Emanresu99#top|talk]]) 15:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |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 waited patiently for more than six (6) months. I now fully understand that help from a related account is considered a meat puppet and against the rules. I apologize, and it will not happen again. Would you please reinstate my account? [[User:Emanresu99|Emanresu99]] ([[User talk:Emanresu99#top|talk]]) 15:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |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 waited patiently for more than six (6) months. I now fully understand that help from a related account is considered a meat puppet and against the rules. I apologize, and it will not happen again. Would you please reinstate my account? [[User:Emanresu99|Emanresu99]] ([[User talk:Emanresu99#top|talk]]) 15:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Justin Miller

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

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emanresu99&oldid=892768460"