User talk:Username1789

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Username1789, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I was told that i couldn't have nor create a wikipedia page for myself because my name wasn't in any journalistic source, that I didn't have enough notoriety."[edit]

Please link me to where this has taken place. As far as I can tell, under your current username, you've never created any articles. In fact, writing on Lazard's talk page and nominating Lazard for deletion are essentially your first edits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone I mean, it was in real life from a fellow collegue I think, I don't quite remember as it was a while ago, but I remember double-checking on Wikipedia at the time and it wasnt allowed. Maybe the policy changed in between, I don't know. It is true that I am not a big Wikipedia contributor, though I started to make some edits a month ago on French Wikipedia (where I found Daniel Lazard) and want to keep contributing but Wikipedia policy is a little complicated for me. Username1789 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone So do you think I can create a page for myself with my work ? I mean I am known in my academic fields for some papers, but never been in journalistic sources. I just want to understand the standards Username1789 (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are that notable, someone else will probably write about you, see WP:AUTOBIO. You also need to pass WP:NACADEMIC. You can write about yourself if you want but it's strongly discouraged and considered poor form by the Wikipedia community as it indicates that you're only really interested in using Wikipedia to further yourself rather than to selflessly benefit the project. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone Okay I understand and to be honest I quite agree with this. I just want everyone to be on the same standards and seeing that Daniel Lazard created his own page without any journalistic source seemed unfair to me and going against this principle. Therefore I ask to delete it so that everyone is on the same good standards Username1789 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a sock investigation. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe what do you mean ? Investigate Daniel Lazard ? How do I do that Username1789 (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Username1789. Have you, or any person acting on your behalf, edited Wikipedia under another username? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Hello, ok I understand, thank you. Are you referring to edits that I made in particular ? Username1789 (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Username1789, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Username1789. 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 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thank you for the Guidelines. I don't think I have any Conflit of Interest. Are you referring to something or someone in particular ? Username1789 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 14 March 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).

Username1789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

From what I understand I am blocked because of this Sockpuppet testimony by Russ Woodroofe : "Possibly also related: Username1789, an SPA created to nominate the Daniel Lazard article for deletion. The tone is similar to some edits of Salmasalma2, and the nomination shows some signs of being retaliatory, perhaps for some edits of D.Lazard over at Juan Branco. Russ Woodroofe (talk)" Though, this accusation seems very weak and has multiple false statements : - First it is false that my account is an "SPA" : I made contributions on multiple pages, on English or French Wikipedia [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. - It is also false that it "was created to nominate D. Lazard" : my account was created earlier and I had already made contributions on French Wikipedia weeks before the nomination [7] [8]. - As for the "similar tone", I don't really know which sentences he is referring to, but here you have the 2 edits that SalmaSalma2 made [9] [10] and I don't see any "similar tone", the edits are very different from the ones I made on the same page (e.g. not same content, not same justification, not same length : Salma made a 6k bytes edit, I only made small sourced edits), we don't have the same editing habits nor tone. - Regarding D. Lazard nomination for deletion, I explained why I did it on his page : I was surprized that he created his own page without any secondary sources but I didn't know about the Wikipedia:Notability rule for scienticists allowing them to have a page if they have sufficient academic citations, so I apologize to D. Lazard for my mistake, it wasn't personnal[11]. - Finally, I can't be a sockpuppet of SalmaSalma2 "created for retaliation" because my account was created before the account of SalmaSalma2 : my account was created on 14th January[12] while SalmaSalma2's account was created a month later on February 14th 2023[13]. Therefore I can't be a sockpuppet of SalmaSalma2. Thanks for your time, feel free to ask if you need anymore information, hope I will be able to keep contributing --Username1789

Decline reason:

One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 8 April 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.

Username1789 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 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).

Username1789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

From what I understand I am blocked because of this Sockpuppet testimony : "Possibly also related: Username1789, an SPA created to nominate the Daniel Lazard article for deletion. The tone is similar to some edits of Salmasalma2, and the nomination shows some signs of being retaliatory, perhaps for some edits of D.Lazard over at Juan Branco. Russ Woodroofe (talk)" This phrase is very weak, to say the least : - First it is false that my account is an "SPA" : I made contributions on multiple pages, on English or French Wikipedia [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. - It is also false that it "was created to nominate D. Lazard" : my account was created earlier and I had already made contributions on French Wikipedia weeks before the nomination [7] [8]. - As for the "similar tone", I don't really know which sentences he is referring to, but here you have the 2 edits that SalmaSalma2 made [9] [10] and I don't see any "similar tone", the edits are very different from the ones I made on the same page (e.g. not same content, not same justification, not same length : Salma made a 6k bytes edit, I only made small sourced edits), we don't have the same editing habits nor tone. - Regarding D. Lazard nomination for deletion, I explained why I did it on his page : I was surprized that he created his own page without any secondary sources but I didn't know about the Wikipedia:Notability rule for scienticists allowing them to have a page if they have sufficient academic citations, so I apologize to D. Lazard for my mistake, it wasn't personnal[11]. - Finaly, my account was created before the account of SalmaSalma2 so it can't be one of his sockpuppets "created for retaliation", my account was created on 14th January[12] while SalmaSalma2's account was created a month later on February 14th 2023[13]. :Thanks for your time, feel free to ask if you need anymore information, I hope this mistake will be resolved and that I will be able to keep contributing

Decline reason:

Maybe you don't see the similarities, but I'm afraid I sure do. I suggest you stop creating sockpuppets, and take a look at the standard offer. I will be revoking access to this talk page; further appeals may be made via the Unblock Ticket Request System. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:29, 6 June 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.

Username1789 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate

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).

Username1789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

collateral damage ? Username1789 (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block is not collateral damage, this account was specifically blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salmasalma2/Archive. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 March 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.

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).

Username1789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here : I don't understand, I don't now this person

Decline reason:

We do not overturn sock puppetry blocks due to a simple denial. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 14 March 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.

Username1789 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

I am sorry but I did not edit your user page. A troll edited it trying to impersonate me, and forged my signature. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 oh okay sorry Username1789 (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 It seems that no admnisitrator is reviewing my request, could you let me know if there is an error in the code ? Or should I just be more patient ? Username1789 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request has been denied. You can submit another one. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I thought a request was still going on, as it says "This user is asking their block to be reviewed", or maybe I didn't write it correctly ? Username1789 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 I sent a new one, is it good now ? Username1789 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]