User talk:Davideventi

Welcome!

Hello, Davideventi, 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 Draft:Linden Jay, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Linden Jay

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:Linden Jay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://prsfoundation.com/grantees/the-writer-producer-fund-linden-jay-berelowitz/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maths Time Joy (September 17)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by K.e.coffman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Fails WP:MUSICBIO.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declare any connection

Hello, Davideventi. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Maths Time Joy, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Worldbruce, but there is no conflict of interest as no personal opinions are being stated in the draft. It only contains facts and releases, and I really can't see how they can be biased or otherwise be perceived as biased, thus causing a conflict of interest. Anyone else could write the article and it would still be the same as it would still be based on the same information, which, again, purely consists of facts. Thanks. Davideventi (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest is not something that is caused by biased editing. It is a situation that exists because of your real world relationship to the subject. If you could "send over his Grammy certificate" as you wrote at the AfC Help Desk, then you are close enough to him that you have a conflict of interest. The only question is the general nature of that conflict. Being evasive or disingenuous about this, not being forthright, is especially troubling. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complying with Wikipedia's terms of use

Hello Davideventi. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Draft:Maths Time Joy, 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, and if it does not, 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:Davideventi. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Davideventi|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. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 19:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #27109 was submitted on Oct 12, 2019 21:26:12. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi there. I don't see why my contributions have been seen as promotion or advertising as they purely contain facts about the artists' careers and details about their releases. And that is merely factual information. The articles/drafts do not read like advertisements at all and there's no promotion purposes behind it. Would you mind unblocking me please? So I can keep working on my drafts and replying to editors' comments, which I cannot do if blocked. Thanks, Davideventi (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear violations of WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. At this point, you aren't going to be unblocked to continue writing about any subjects for which you have a conflict of interest. Yamla (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the violations of WP:COI and WP:PAID, which were pointed out to me yesterday. However, I was blocked immediately after, without having time to disclose the paid edits properly and to reply to the editor who asked me to disclose them. If I am unblocked, I will be able to do that, but I can't if I am blocked. Also, I understand that what you say applies to the three pages I have contributed to, but I find it a bit unfair to say that that is my only purpose, when I have only started contributing a few weeks ago and I could well be contributing to other articles/topics in the future, but that's being prevented from me now. Thanks, Davideventi (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be too close to your clients or too much into marketing to see that you are promoting your own clients by editing about them. This will not be permitted at this time. If you are interested in being a general contributor, please tell what other subjects you want to edit about and agree to not edit about your clients or anything else related to your conflict of interest. If you spend some time (six months to a year, if not more) developing a significant edit history that shows your general interest in improving Wikipedia, you might(emphasis on might) be permitted to make edit requests and submit drafts related to your clients. If you are just here to tell the world about your clients, there is no need to remove the block, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2019 (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.

What topics do you want to edit about that are unrelated to your conflict of interest, and would you agree to not make edits related to your COI? 331dot (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot I don't know yet as I'm not planning on being a full time editor but when I'll know more specifically it will definitely be something I am competent and have enough relevant sourced information about. Re the COI, from what I understand it's ok to keep making edits as long as I disclose the COI, or is that not the case? Thanks, Davideventi (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not directly edit articles in the area of your COI(even if you disclose); you may make edit requests(on existing articles) and use Articles for Creation(to submit drafts of new articles), but only if you are interested in being a general contributor and demonstrate that by building up an edit history that shows you are here to do more than make COI edits. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Ok, I understand that. But the reason I was blocked was for "advertising or promotion", not for COI. So I don't see how that's keeping me from being unblocked. Davideventi (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By only making COI edits, you have revealed that you are here to spread the word about your clients. If that's all you are interested in doing, there is no need to unblock you. If you want to be a general contributor, please tell what you will edit. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot That does not make those edits "advertising or promotion" though. You say that I have revealed that I am here to spread the word about my clients, and that may be true, but isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? Sharing facts and information that can be of help to people? My 'spreading the word about my clients' only consists in stating factual information. I am obviously not saying anything biased in the articles/drafts, nor am I saying 'go check out my artist / go buy this artist's record', as I am well aware that this is not the place.

I understand the COI, but you have not provided me with any actual reason as to why my edits are seen as advertising. COI is not mentioned in WP:SPAM at all, so your reason for blocking me does not stand. Or at least it does not follow any criterion shown in WP:SPAM, which is why I have been blocked in the first place. Re other contributions, I honestly don't know what I will be contributing to. I am surely not planning on being a daily editor but I would still like to have the option and possibility to, and I think that is allowed, even if it's not on a regular basis. Davideventi (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, "sharing facts and information" is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject (or its representative) wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dotYes, I know that – I thought that was kind of implicit. I am obviously not going to write an article saying what I think about the artist. I am very well aware that the information needs to be notable, reliable and sourced. And I have done that in my previous contributions and drafts, because, once again, I have only been stating facts and not sharing opinions as if this were my personal blog. Anyway, this does not explain why I am being blocked for WP:SPAM when I have only been pointed out reasons that relate to COI.

I'll note for the record that I've just revision-deleted a contribution you made to Draft:Jonas Aden, which was a copyright violation of http://urbanrebelpr.com/project/jonas-aden?LMCL=q1a6e4 . I expect you will need to address this point in your unblock requests going forward as well. stwalkerster (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stwalkerster If you had done more extensive research, you would have noticed that most websites/blogs/magazines/articles containing Jonas' bio are pretty much the same as I have written the bio and provided them with it. So it is really not a copyright violation. If anything, it's them using a bio that I wrote. Can you please restore the full article, including the career/bio? Thanks, Davideventi (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your desire to have your articles undeleted will significantly count against your unblock request. It indicates this is what you care about and you already know Wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. --Yamla (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I understand that, but I am only asking that they rectify what is a mistake on their end. I believe everyone here is talking about and following guidelines/criteria, so although I understand what you are saying and I understand that my request might be seen the wrong way, what I am asking here is for you to be fair and understand that this is only a mistake on User:Stwalkerster's end and not mine, despite any alleged purpose I might have in asking to restore the page. Which I don't, because, again, I have asked to restore it purely on a point of principle.

What's more, in all of this, no one has actually provided me with any actual reason as to why my edits are seen as advertising. As I mentioned above, "COI is not mentioned in WP:SPAM at all, so your reason for blocking me does not stand. Or at least it does not follow any criterion shown in WP:SPAM, which is why I have been blocked in the first place". Davideventi (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's promotional for you to tell the world about your artists especially if it is unclear at best as to if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as true as that may be, you are still not citing any criterion mentioned in WP:SPAM. What you are saying is only your take on the criteria and essentially only implies that anyone can draw their own conclusions without actually following Wikipedia's criteria and guidelines. I'm ok with everything you say, but I have been blocked for WP:SPAM and I am yet to read anything from any of you saying how my contributions fall within WP:SPAM by actually quoting the article and not just saying what you believe the criteria mean. And your assumption as to whether the articles meet the notability criteria is totally unrelated to me being blocked for WP:SPAM. Davideventi (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you are getting that you are blocked for SPAM; the stated reason for the block is "Promotion/advertising only account". 331dot (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is why I have been blocked – You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion – and the words "advertising and promotion" redirect to WP:SPAM. And if you read what WP:SPAM says about advertisting, it is definitely not representative or someohow descriptive of my previous contributions. The article clearly states that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities", otherwise most pages on Wikipedia could be considered as written for the purpose of advertising and promotion. I did not use "sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website", nor did I use citations and/or references improperly. Davideventi (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log is available here and is as 331dot describes. You seem to be describing the block notice, given higher up on this page, hence the confusion. --Yamla (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay, I was looking at the entry in the block log which has different links(one that one, and another to a different page). Anyway, it is the mere fact that you are editing for your clients to spread the word about them that is "spam". You did not disclose (as far as I can tell) your connection to your clients until you got a notice from Worldbruce above, and you still did not disclose(again, as far as I can tell) your paid editing status, which is a Terms of Use violation and resulted in your block. If you had made the needed declarations before you attempted to write about them, you might have had more success(though it wouldn't have been guaranteed). 331dot (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla There is no confusion. The block log also redirects to WP:SPAM and WP:PROMOTION, which, once again, are not descriptive of my contributions. Please read those two articles and then read my contributions and then please specifically state where my contributions fall within those criteria. You will find that they don't as I have only been stating factual information. For the umpteenth time, the fact that there is a COI, and I understand there is, is not ever mentioned in WP:SPAM or WP:PROMOTION.

331dot As I have already mentioned somewhere above, I was not aware of the COI. I was made aware of the COI by Worldbruce but I was blocked immediately after, without being given time to disclose it properly. Which I would have, if I had not been blocked. That being said, once again, I am being blocked for WP:SPAM and WP:PROMOTION and none of those articles make one reference to COI as a valid criterion for which an editor should be blocked. Hope this clarifies. Davideventi (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMOTION, section 5, Advertising, marketing or public relations. This says, "See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." --Yamla (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." is referred to the fact that I should disclose my COI. How would I be able to do that if I am blocked? This is clearly contradictory and to be honest at this point the fact that you keep insisting on the conflict of interest without addressing the lenghty article about WP:SPAM and WP:PROMOTION only seems biased and not objective at all. Davideventi (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could formally disclose it right now, on this page- but you really don't need to until you are unblocked and can edit your user page. You seem to think disclosure is the only issue here- it isn't. Even with disclosure, you won't be permitted to directly edit about your clients, so we need to know what else you want to edit about. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, which is why I haven't, as there would be no point in disclosing if I am still blocked. Once again, it is a matter of principle. I've been blocked for an alleged reason, but you have been throwing several other reasons my way as to why my account is blocked, but none of them actually corresponds to the 'official' reason of my block. I was wrongly blocked and I would like to be unblocked, purely as a matter of principle. I don't have a 6-month plan for what I'm planning to edit about. I would just like to have the option to be able to edit if I wanted to. I don't think every editor that is not editing regularly is being asked what they're planning to edit, or am I wrong? Not being allowed to edit some articles because of a COI is one thing, but you not allowing me to edit at all is really just hubristic and an abuse of your capacities as an editor. Davideventi (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we only ask blocked editors what they want to edit about, as if they don't want to edit, there is no need to lift the block. Lifting the block must benefit Wikipedia in some way. If it would make you feel better, we can put in the block log "edited about their clients, conflict of interest", but most who read the block log understand promotion to mean 'spreading the word about one's clients'. Now that your access to this page has been removed(which I would have done had someone else not done it), you will have to make further appeals as described, but if there is nothing you want to edit, there is no need to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you don't seem to understand the difference between spam/promotion articles, as lengthily explained in WP:SPAM, and legitimate articles about commercial entities. Davideventi (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

– Athaenara ✉ 02:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Maths Time Joy has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Maths Time Joy. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]