User talk:Estarosmārṭ

"Lauren W.W." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lauren W.W.. Since you had some involvement with the Lauren W.W. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Chime B" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chime B. Since you had some involvement with the Chime B redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MLM

I don't want this to turn into an edit war but you seem uninterested in what sources say, so stop reverting on Market America and read the talk page as well as the existing sources which clearly identify it as an MLM. If you bothered to read anything I said to you, the talk page, previous edit summaries or the sources you'd know what consensus already is. Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I don't engage in edit war, I hate that. However, I stand on wiki justice. I am not holding brief for Market America. I tried to explain the difference between MLM and Direct selling to you. Take it easy. Like I said on your talk page, if I ever discover the company is truly an MLM, I'll quit on this. I am only updating because I discovered, they are not an MLM. I'll dig out more facts and come back on this. Meanwhile, let's take things easy. English wikipedia is an open-source for all. We owe it a duty to keep the platform in good light by making sure we have correct info on pages. Thank you. Estarosmārṭ (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOR. All you're doing is trying to impose your own research when all of the reliable sources in the article literally call it an MLM. Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Praxidicae, not my research. The company's website stated they are Direct selling. Not an MLM. It's very clear there. What other source is more reliable than the primary website. The website has been in existence for years Crunchbase, INC magazine, Direct Selling News and other sources also states same info. . The company's products and services are clearly stated there. Mind you MLM is not a negative stuff. It's a form of networking marketing that recruits new members. Directly selling is quite different stuff altogether. I am worried at your insistence over a simple issue. This is quite discouraging.Estarosmārṭ (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

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.

GeneralNotability (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a paid editor as alleged. The blocking editor agreed I am not linked to that sock. I have not edit-warred. I have always avoided that. I was only concerned about the wrong MLM info on Market America. I raised a DRN to discuss it here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Market_America

It's been on going. I have not engaged in disruptive editing. User:Robert McClenon, you've been helping with this. Could you help me here.

If my edits on Market America is the reason for the block, I am sorry for that. I am not connected to several other editors that have worked on the page. But truly, I don't have COI issues with that. I am sorry if I have offended in any way. I promise to abide by all rules from hence. Please User:GeneralNotability, I have read and understood the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements. But I am not a paid editor. I am only fighting for what I felt is right concerning Market America. I don't have any COI with them. I only raised a DRN to address this issue. Honestly I am getting worried and frustrated with this block. I don't get it. I am sorry if my edits appears to violate the rules. I promise to be more careful in future. Please forgive me and unlock me.Estarosmārṭ (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2020 (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.

I have no particular information about or involvement with this block. I do not know whether the block is based on an inference, or on information provided to administrators that is not meant to be disclosed. If the block is based on an inference, I do not think that there is enough information to draw that inference. If the block is based on information that I have not seen, then I have not seen the information and know nothing about it. I have not researched any sockpuppetry in this matter. I do not intend to have any further dealing with this matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]