Thanks for visiting my talk page. Exploring ideas, technology and pop culture.

If you know anything about this please leave your comments here. I responded to his message, left a message on his IP talk page, and he never responded back. I have seen edits from IP's 81.111.125.118 and 77.100.124.244. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lengnau and Wallbach.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Time Force Corporate Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ScienceAdvisor. Wikipedians appreciate your work here on Wikipedia, but it seems apparent that you're doing paid editing from quite some time without any disclosure. Please note that paid editing is allowed on Wikipedia, but it should be disclosed before doing the edits. Per WP:PAID, you're required to completely disclose each and every paid edit you did on your userpage using a standard template (take help from this format User:Junedude433). Also, as you're active on an online marketplace as an independent contractor, so you've to post that profile link on your user page for transparency. Private evidence (in form of a profile link) and your editing history is enough to report to WP:ARBCOM in case of denial of paid editing and that would result in a ban. Please cooperate. Thank you!

This is an IP addition with no additional edits on info.. is anyone answering? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Salvio ^giuliano 22:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on evidence that was submitted in private to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org and which I found convincing. I can't disclose too much, owing to Wikimedia's policy. If you want to appeal this block, you can do it here on your talk page or privately, by sending an e-mail to the aforementioned e-mail address. Salvio ^giuliano 23:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious what an editor who is obviously hiding his identity of random sock puppets from multiple Virgin IP addresses in England had to say? He is obviously a skilled wikipedian and it suddenly happened when I made an edit to a page for Boxabl which has many sock and inaccurate issues.. In fact the company may have committed a $100M fraud if I am reading their SEC filings right but, I am not sure what that has to do with me? Perhaps this guy thinks I am one of the sock puppets? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence submitted was about you and I have not investigated the IP editor, so can't comment on their conduct or on Boxabl. Specifically, the evidence the checkuser team was sent was about the fact that you appear to have been paid to create or edit articles about people and corporations and have not made that clear. If that is the case, the block can be lifted as soon as you agree to comply with Wikipedia's disclosure requirements. Salvio ^giuliano 23:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt editing from multiple ip's when you have an account a violation of the TOS.. Did you read the message on my talk page about this exact subject.. I have kept almost every page I have ever done up to date.. smh! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, it can be a violation of our sock puppetry policy, but that's not necessarily so. Using multiple accounts is not blockable per se, unless it is done for illegitimate purposes. Salvio ^giuliano 23:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd someone who is so knowledgable in wikipedia and its procedures would hide behind several ip's on the same network, not give me a chance to answer any concerns and the would send an email to wikipedia saying??? Aren't they supposed to leave notices like that from their accounts so admins can see how many people they accuse, if they are being paid, are using wikipedia improperly, or have a unintelligent position? There isnt a sentence in my articles that isnt completely referenced properly and I dont ever use adjectives in any of my edits so everything is always in a neutral pov. My account is over 4 years old and I have always contributed to wikipedia in a positive way. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed to abide by your terms. Is there a specific page that I have been accused of paid editing? Given my knowledge of my life, I would find in impossible that he was able to provide you anything close to a receipt, invoice, emails, phone communications, or anything else that would be evidentiary? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I add I also keep a complete list of every page I create on my User page.. and always have. I think there were 16 created in 4 + years. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was there personal information that I included in my articles that is not available. on the internet that exposed some sort of personal connection? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be familiar with WP:BEANS... Salvio ^giuliano 08:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In science and in life we hold this responsibility but, I had not seen or considered it being a possibility on Wikipedia. Like it says at the top, Wikipedia is like a big onion, always another layer. I appreciate your kind demeanor and assistance. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says at the top, Wikipedia is like a big onion, always another layer. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top of my user page. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it ridiculous this sock puppet has started going around tagging my pages with UPE tags while saying I am blocked when we are obviously still discussing this and I have agreed to abide by the terms of wikipedia. This guy is head hunting anonymously.. He probably has a stake in one of the pages and is trying to hide it by tagging a couple of them. You should stop this guy before he does anymore damage to the Wikipedia. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of use require you to "disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation". As far as I've seen, you've not yet done that; most of your comments here appear to be oriented to working out how you've been found out, not towards declaring your paid editing (or refuting that charge, if you believe it to be wrong). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am suspended pending my agreement, how can I put anything on my user page? It wont let me do anything but answer these messages? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can post here, and indeed the block notice above tells you what you need to post in this regard. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:04, 6 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have agreed to abide by the terms the admin has stated for my account to be reinstated. Thank you for your help in reinstating my page. I will make sure any required info gets added to my user page.

Decline reason:

Your block request does not address the three requirements for it to be considered that are set out in the block notice above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 6 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.