User talk:Site Alpha
Joseph Carraro
[edit]I was going to submit this account as a sockpuppet and/or paid editor because your edit history on Joseph Carraro made it so obvious, but I also noticed that this appears to be a throw-away account that went dormant right after the Carraro attempt. I don't know how it slipped by me, but if you'd be so kind as to inform Mr. Carraro that I'm not going to let it happen again, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article in question follows the rules of Wikipedia and the article is now written in the manner of others in the subjects social category with non-bias. One reference was picked up by the AI and is in need of correction that is in progress. A moderator should review this post for further considerations of administrative action. Note, no financial transaction has been exchanged for re-write of this article. Also, there is quota on contributions to the compendium to which I am aware, but I have intent to contribute in the future or if I see inaccuracy to which I can contribute corrections. Site Alpha (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- You made this massive edit which more or less restored all of the unsourced and poorly-sourced text that had existed before the other UPEs/socks were blocked. In your edit summary, you said "That subject of article would prefer to minimalize information, such as birthdate, for financial security", which implies a COI. Whether you're a UPE, a sock, or both, is mostly irrelevant - one of those things is obviously the case. It's also interesting that despite your broken English on your talk page and the edit summary, the massive additions to the Carraro article were more or less grammatically perfect, although that's not as relevant. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mr. Zepelin you attempted to imposter yourself as my mentor. Let me be clear, I do not appreciate that nor does it fall in the pillars of appropriateness of Wikipedia in regards with respect and civility nor do your insults. Action has been taken by my proper mentor and hopefully action by a moderator. My interview with the subject was non-bias presents accurately and in context from multiple individual accounts the subjects bio's perspective. My review of the subjects provided referenced material was independently obtained and verified. If you have a dispute with article I presented, please present it to the assigned moderator for review. Site Alpha (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Who is your "proper mentor"? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mr. Zepelin you attempted to imposter yourself as my mentor. Let me be clear, I do not appreciate that nor does it fall in the pillars of appropriateness of Wikipedia in regards with respect and civility nor do your insults. Action has been taken by my proper mentor and hopefully action by a moderator. My interview with the subject was non-bias presents accurately and in context from multiple individual accounts the subjects bio's perspective. My review of the subjects provided referenced material was independently obtained and verified. If you have a dispute with article I presented, please present it to the assigned moderator for review. Site Alpha (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- You made this massive edit which more or less restored all of the unsourced and poorly-sourced text that had existed before the other UPEs/socks were blocked. In your edit summary, you said "That subject of article would prefer to minimalize information, such as birthdate, for financial security", which implies a COI. Whether you're a UPE, a sock, or both, is mostly irrelevant - one of those things is obviously the case. It's also interesting that despite your broken English on your talk page and the edit summary, the massive additions to the Carraro article were more or less grammatically perfect, although that's not as relevant. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)