User talk:SalamanderAI

Welcome!

Hello, SalamanderAI, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, I'm TechnoSquirrel69. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Andrew D. Huberman have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cosmic6811. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Andrew D. Huberman. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 06:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Andrew D. Huberman, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 06:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't trying to advertise or spam. I just created my account, and I was just trying to expand Huberman's page, and when everyone kept deleting my edits it was frustrating because I thought they were just being unnecessary. Adding the link to Huberman's supplement brand seemed fine to me since the mention of it was on the page. I understand if you're going to block me from a couple of pages but to outright block my entire IP address from ever editing on Wikipedia again seems a bit extreme. I have a high-to-mastery level of understanding on a few topics and enough knowledge of others to be able to contribute to various topics on this site. I won't add weblinks to pages anymore but I really enjoy doing this and learning and an indefinite ban seems really harsh for someone who just joined 2 days ago. That's all Salamander (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned, there is a difference. When your account is blocked, you personally are blocked and may not edit Wikipedia under any account or IP address until this block is removed. Attempting to edit via IP is considered block evasion. As you have an account, focus on getting your account unblocked. It's not going to be possible for you to not add links as that's required when sourcing edits- but you don't seem to understand what was wrong with your link adding to that article. That's what we are really looking for here. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2023 (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.

(Note: This isn't just about links. Promoting someone's "effort championing continuous improvement principles" in Special:Diff/1184596819 is similarly strange and needs an explanation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As I was one of the users reverting you prior to your block: It's wise to take a look at the guide to appealing unblocks. Specifically, you need to acknowledge that you broke the WP:3RR and that you were inappropriately putting a commercial link in the external link section (should be avoided per wp:ADV) despite other users reverting you, and posting 3 warnings on your talk page. If you are going to request an unblock, I recommend you take a break for a while before doing so. Then compose an unblock request with the guide to appealing unblocks in mind. 1. Acknowledge where you went wrong (edit warring, ignoring user requests you stop, and inappropriate external links), 2. how you will improve your editing in future, and 3. that you are interested in contributing got Wikipedia. Your unblock request didn't acknowledge where you went wrong, and instead complained about how the block was unfair. Avoid complaining. The block was fair, it might feel unfair because you didn't know the specific rules, but you were warned multiple times to stop on your talk page. You will be given far more leniency if you accept and apologize. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Good evening. I would like to start off by apologizing for the criminally embarrassing unblock "reason" I provided previously. I will admit that I fundamentally did not understand the rules well enough to be editing on Wikipedia, and I have and will continue to apprise myself of the guidelines set by Wikipedia. I see now with far more clarity the mistakes that I made, such as adding links to commercial sites or not providing enough clarity or explanation, and edit-warring with users/administrators. This is not intended to be an excuse, but rather some potential insight into what and why I did what I did, and that is that I had been operating on little-to-no sleep for several days and should not have been within throwing distance of a Wikipedia article at that time, nor should I have attempted to petition for an unblock. I do sincerely apologize for my previous actions and I hope that I will have a chance to redeem myself at some point in the future. I genuinely love contributing to a body of knowledge, as well as learning more about various topics, and I believe that I could be a good contributor to Wikipedia. I will treat this site, its rules, and other users with far more reverence going forward than I had previously, and will not be attempting to work on articles unless I have all my faculties (brain function and clarity of thought). I will also not attempt to revert any edits in the future without discussing it with the other editor/admin first. I hope that soon I can return to the site as an editor and will be taking the necessary steps to educate myself on the rules and best practices that Wikipedia requires. If the administrators feel that more time and consideration will be required before allowing me to come back to the platform, I will accept and respect this decision. I would like to end this by saying that while my intentions were good, my execution was not and my reaction to the consequences was childish and quite frankly embarrassing. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I'm not sure this was noticed by any of the other admins on this page, but your edits to Glenn High School (Leander, Texas) were a copyright violation. I'm inclined to unblock you, but first I need to know that you will comply with our copyright policy. – bradv 03:59, 7 January 2024 (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.