User talk:Writerguywiki

Welcome!

Hi Writerguywiki! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Your edit has inspired me to write a paragraph at Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder#Society and culture. Hopefully, since it's now citing a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article, other editors will realize that this subject isn't just the opinion of a non-expert reporter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added 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. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Writerguywiki. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Writerguywiki. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Writerguywiki|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curb Safe Charmer. I am certainly not a paid advocate. I wanted to see how Wikipedia worked. I tried to keep the links very relevant, and I wanted them to add value. But I'm sorry if I still crossed any lines. I can undo any edits that don't keep with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. 22:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

– Joe (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked because I was a new user deleting references on 2-3 pages. The references I deleted included an "Original text" link that redirected to a completely unrelated website that was benefitting from lying to Wikipedia. The link had gone defunct, and someone purchased the domain thereafter to adopt its backlink profile, which is not expressly against Wikipedia's or Google's guidelines, but it is incredibly dishonest. I hated the idea of a Wikipedia user clicking "Original Text" to try and research first-hand original documents, only to get redirected to an unrelated page. In the future, I will bring it up on a page's Talk page so other, less-new users can take down fraudulent links and references. In the future, I will bring up all problems I find on Wikipedia on the Talk Page instead of taking matters into my own hands.

Decline reason:

Highly likely to Aaaaall123 and you have provided no reason to doubt this. Yamla (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2021 (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.

Hi, Yamla. Thanks for your response even if it's not was I was hoping for. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your note explaining the decline. I don't know who Aaaaa11123 is. I am certainly not whoever that user was. I hope this elicits a response, so I can better understand the reason for your decline. Thank you. 02:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]