User talk:Buntarion/Archive/2022

Welcome!

Hello, Buntarion, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Raw Balance, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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, ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 17:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Raw Balance

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 Raw Balance, 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. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 17:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello Buntarion. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Joel Li ‎, 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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:Buntarion. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Buntarion|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. Kuru (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Kuru (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements, but I have no idea why I was blocked for that reason as last two articles I tried to create were not paid by anybody and as I believe it is wrong that they were deleted. Maybe the first one was written somehow incorrect but the second one was about famous musician and entrepreneur in China. Please unblock my account as I have been editing here since 2014 and I have never went against the Rules of The Wikipedia. Thank You. Regards, Buntarion (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not exactly correct; you have edited since 2014, but you only have 33 edits(including deleted ones) in that time, which does not indicate a deep understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. There is a difference between "famous" and the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable person. It is quite obvious that you aren't picking these topics at random. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2022 (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'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).

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

Request reason:

English Wiki wasn't the main language I write for a long period since I have started contributing in other language sectors. And believe those 33 edits cost me a lot of work back then. Besides, I have done a lot of work in Russian and Avar languages. I understood my mistake and from now on I am not going to create articles about such topics, I just want to edit articles about geography and etc. (that definetely won't be even close to so called paid contribution. Please, pay some respect to the contribution I have already made in other languages, I really care about Wikipedia rules. And next time you decide to block me please, 1) notify me that I'm doing something wrong (and don't block just emmidiately). I'm not spaming or trying to recreate those articles that you decided are not worth to be here. Why are you still blocking me?? Okay, you deleted them, that's right. Let me do some other useful work. ~~~~

Decline reason:

You weren't notified you were doing something wrong? Directly above I see a request to cease editing until you addressed the concern about your lack of disclosure of paid editing, but you continued editing after that warning. I would have blocked you on that basis. Only one of your articles has been deleted, "Raw Balance", and that one gave the appearance of existing solely for publicity purposes, which explains why you were suspected of being a paid editor. I am unconvinced that you understand the concept of notability as it applies to the English Wikipedia, and what criteria a topic must meet before it can be included in the English Wikipedia. I applaud your work on other language Wikipedias, but they have different rules, and the English Wikipedia is probably the most stringent. Until you can demonstrate that in your next appeal, I must decline your unblock request for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2022 (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's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I've understood my mistake and I will not write any article about companies or living people anymore. I just want to make my contribution in the sphere that I'm interested in. It's history mostly. Please, unblock me for the God's sake! At least tell me what I can do to unblock my account, please... — Buntarion ^talk 7:45 am, 18 June 2022, Saturday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

unblock per talk Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: You placed this block. Do you think the above undertaking about future editing is enough to give Buntarion another chance? JBW (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: - Sorry, this nonsense was blatant paid or COI editing. Spam sources in fake "news" articles, silly press releases, and what appears to be a fake license on an image. The passive-aggressive unblock requests and claims that they were unaware of the problem are not convincing. I'm usually happy to unblock, but there's an honesty problem here which makes it difficult to take them for their word. Kuru (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: - Exuse me, but how can you know what is honest and what is not if you don't even give a chance? I am really aware of this account here in Wikipedia, because I'm using it almost 10 years. And I am willing to do anything to keep it. I have already stated above what I'm going to do in the future and what I'm not going to do. And I think you see that I'm not someone who always used to go against Wikipedia rools. I have done it two times by creating two articles (the first one was my 2nd article here, it was really bad. Anyway, the second one was about a person recognised by Forbes China, but yes, I couldn't find right sources, you are right, and at the end the article was worth to be deleted. That's it. You have deleted it. And it's fine, I wasn't trying to recreate it, because I have understood the problem. But, you suddenly blocked me as I am an avid spammer). Please, unblock me (I assure you that I'm not going to write something like that anymore) or please let other admins consider this case because I'm sure that I've already had enough punishment. Thank you!

It was not that you did not "find [the] right sources", it's that the ones you used were obviously fake paid placement and blackhat SEO blogs for an utterly non-notable car salesman. You then ignored the commentary left on the article and warnings on your talk page, and then reverted the promotional material back in. The photo you added was labeled as your "own work", and there seems to be a string of copyright violations at Commons. Given this, and the other promotional additions, this is just textbook COI editing. This isn't about punishment or "time served", this is about preventing future poor behavior - behavior that takes a tremendous amount of time from our volunteers to clean up. Happy to work with you, but you'll need to be more transparent in your response. Kuru (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am transperent. You are not preventing future poor behavior, you are just trying to put unilateral censorship on me just because I have created two promotional aricles. So, now I'm not asking you to unblock me so I can go on with those articles. That was my mistake. I will not write any article about companies or living people anymore. I just want to make my contribution in the sphere that I'm interested in (Eastern Caucasus history, and there is no enough information about it in the English Wikipedia). I am a fan of Wikipedia, and I'm not going to take your time anymore. I understand and respect the work you do. Thank you — Buntarion ^talk 10:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru and JBW: running through the slush pile. Had some sccess clearing the baclog. Inclined to decline based on this discussion. @Buntarion: Can you be more specific aout your future editing? FWIW, my sense is that you need to read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID. This goes double in light of your cry of, "censorship." It is not censorship to expect you to comply with the same rules as the rest of us. Editing for pay is not prohibited so long as you are open and honest about it, though some restrictions may apply. Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly admitting that I made mistake publishing those articles, but I don't agree that I am the one who should be blocked forever for that. I am sorry, I understand my mistakes and, moreover, I swear I'm not going to edit that kind of topics anymore. What else I need to do? I just want to make my contribution in other topics like History where I can't be blamed for "creating promotional articles"... Going against Wki restrictions is not my goal, it was my mistake about which I've regretted a lot. Now I got acquainted with WP:COI and WP:PAID, understand them, and will follow them. — Buntarion ^talk 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru and Deepfriedokra: Unfortunately this happens all the time with unblock requests. Whatever problems there have been in the past, Buntarion has undertaken not to edit in the subject areas where the problems occurred, so why not give them a chance? Obviously, if we did so and it turned out that Buntarion didn't stick to that undertaking, we would block again, with far less likelihood of ever unblocking again, but we have no reason to assume that will happen. If we assume that Buntarion's undertaking is made in good faith and with every intention of sticking to it, then the reason for the block has gone. Statements such as "this nonsense was blatant paid or COI editing" (my emphasis) indicate that the block is being maintained as punishment for past faults, not to prevent future ones. JBW (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JBW. I can always count on your logic to cut through to the answer. Endorse unblock Too asleep to know if I can proceed or not to unblock, but yeah. Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been burnt by liars too many times in the past. Perhaps he will reward your trust. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, thank You so much! — Buntarion ^talk 17:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Joel Li

Hello, Buntarion. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joel Li, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Joel Li

Hello, Buntarion. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joel Li".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]