User talk:Wizmann

Wizmann, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wizmann! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GoingBatty (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wizmann. 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 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 WP:Spam);
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. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

similar considerations apply to negative COI,, as they do to promotion. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have no relation whatsoever with WIS, so this limitation does not apply to me.--Wizmann (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Weizmann Institute of Science. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — UwU wug's this? 22:26, 1 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked because I complaint against another person? where have I uploaded unsourced content, and commited edit waring? also why am I accused of COI?Wizmann (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 2 April 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.

You keep adding poorly sourced NPOV content that keeps getting removed by multiple different editors because it violates WP:SYNTH. Examples: 30 March, 30 March, 31 March. Each time reverted by different people. When another person came by and reverted you (again) you reported them for edit warring despite it being their first time to edit the page. As for COI, your name is obviously based on Weizmann, and it's the only page you edit. I'm supposed to believe that's an accident? — UwU wug's this? 23:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first this claim is made is today; I dispute it, and other admin has told it's in the gray area between primary source and secondary. I do claim that most if not all the text is quoting. when someone made this claim, I haven't reverted it, I've begun speaking about it. I did complain because he broke the 3 reverts rule. what is surprsing is that I've been blocked, though not warned even once. Regrading my neutrality: I've added the sources that claim the same. if you have a source that claim otherwise, let's talk. no one has made that claim beside an employee that made some statements, but not based upon any source. I see only 2 revision: 1) Of an employee which the community has classified as illegitimate because of COI. 2) A person that actually only disagreed the wording. Therefore, the right action in my opinion, is just change a bit the words, not reverting it completely, and of course not blocking me. Regarding the edit warring, the rule is simple: no 3 edition in one day. the user has made 3 consecutive reverts, this is the rule, and he broke it. what I supposed to do? not reporting it? regarding coi, I mentioned many times, I open a separate account to prevent from WIS' people to get even with me. In retrospective, it was a smart move to do. It of course doesn't mean I am related somehow to the institute, of course if I were, I wouldn't have added things that showing a more complete picture about it instead of positive things.--Wizmann (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They did not, the only person edit warring on that page was you. If you are reporting someone else for edit warring, I assume you know what edit warring is. That is why you were not warned. You knew edit warring was against policy, but you brought attention to your own behavior. You seem to seriously misunderstand the edit warring policy and I recommend you read it again while waiting to be unblocked. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable ... any edit warring may lead to sanctions...Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Whether you broke the 3 revert rule or not, you were quite obviously edit warring because you repeatedly restored your preferred version, and I provided links above showing you do it. The only person edit warring on that page was you, and you misunderstand what a "revert" is. If you read WP:3RR again you will see A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. The person you reported, according to the edit warring policy, made one revert. — UwU wug's this? 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]