User talk:TagKnife
| This is TagKnife's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| An appreciation of your efforts on CityFibre :) HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of SurrealDB
[edit]
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 SurrealDB requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurrealDB. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikishovel (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]
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.
TagKnife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understand WP:COI rules and have reported such WP:COIN myself, I beleive am not in violation of such rules. I have not been compensated for any edits on wikipedia and trhe only affiliation i have with most articles i edit is that of a customer and some whom has a deep understanding and knoweledge of the subject. I intend to keep editting articles I have editted in such a mannor i have editted them unless it is made aware to me of what this supposide COI is about. [[User:TagKnife|TagKnife]] ([[User talk:TagKnife#top|talk]]) 12:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand WP:COI rules and have reported such WP:COIN myself, I beleive am not in violation of such rules. I have not been compensated for any edits on wikipedia and trhe only affiliation i have with most articles i edit is that of a customer and some whom has a deep understanding and knoweledge of the subject. I intend to keep editting articles I have editted in such a mannor i have editted them unless it is made aware to me of what this supposide COI is about. [[User:TagKnife|TagKnife]] ([[User talk:TagKnife#top|talk]]) 12:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand WP:COI rules and have reported such WP:COIN myself, I beleive am not in violation of such rules. I have not been compensated for any edits on wikipedia and trhe only affiliation i have with most articles i edit is that of a customer and some whom has a deep understanding and knoweledge of the subject. I intend to keep editting articles I have editted in such a mannor i have editted them unless it is made aware to me of what this supposide COI is about. [[User:TagKnife|TagKnife]] ([[User talk:TagKnife#top|talk]]) 12:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Policy limits what I am allowed to say here on wiki. This isn't about merely COI, but undisclosed paid editing(which is not limited to specific compensation for edits). 331dot (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @331dot:, I'm assuming what you refer to is information gleaned from WP:COIVRT? The policy for this sort of block reads, in part: "Blocks with rationales that depend on information from this queue must be done with a link to the ticket number in the log entry." Although even if it had that I can't see how an admin without that access is able to realistically review this. I'm honestly at a loss here, should such blocks be marked as only subject to review by users who have queue access? El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 21:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do have a link in the log. I can say something similar to what was said at AN: "I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)"
- As for who can review, maybe only the queue holders/checkusers can? 331dot (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, I didn't check the log, just the block notice. I'm dumb, didn't carefully read what I reposted. I'm wondering I guess if there shouldn't be a template similar to {{oversight block}} that makes it immediately clear to admins without queue access to just move along to something else, but that's a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports, not here. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. We've all missed those sorts of things. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, I didn't check the log, just the block notice. I'm dumb, didn't carefully read what I reposted. I'm wondering I guess if there shouldn't be a template similar to {{oversight block}} that makes it immediately clear to admins without queue access to just move along to something else, but that's a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports, not here. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- @331dot:, I'm assuming what you refer to is information gleaned from WP:COIVRT? The policy for this sort of block reads, in part: "Blocks with rationales that depend on information from this queue must be done with a link to the ticket number in the log entry." Although even if it had that I can't see how an admin without that access is able to realistically review this. I'm honestly at a loss here, should such blocks be marked as only subject to review by users who have queue access? El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 21:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)