Editsreviews

Edits Reviews

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please don't edit-war. If your addition is challenged, you take the discussion to the talk page, not attempt to force your preferred version into the article. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You've now made 9 personal attacks on me in the IJERA thread:

1. "you find it hard to understand their work."
2. "your comments above which show your limited understanding of a scientific article"
3. "your persistent misjudgment, conduct issues and dialog fails"
4. "you easily attack anyone and any source and you act like as if you own the articles here"
5. "again show your limited understanding and poor knowledge"
6. "you have no knowledge regarding the topics of viruses and genetically modified viruses"
7. "you take everything personal and also it looks like that you don't agree with the article due to personal reasons"
8. "you first attacked the source"
9. "You later attacked the University of Bradford and their academics. You even attacked geneticists and you published false statements"

None of the above is true and I'd like to you strike your attacks immediately. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello Editsreviews. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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:Editsreviews. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Editsreviews|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. ——Serial ^# 15:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

I have just reviewed this discussion, and your behaviour there is unacceptable on several levels. Firstly, you have been alerted to discretionary sanctions applicable to the subject of Covid-19/Coronavirus disease, above. As part of that, there are strict restrictions on what kinds of sources are allowed in related medical articles. It's actually all covered in WP:MEDRS, but the community has decided to adhere to that even more strictly than usual. The requirement for appropriate sources has been explained to you in that discussion, and you have also been told why the IJERA source that you have been trying to use to include a fringe theory is not acceptable.

Instead of listening to experienced Wikipedia editors, you have turned to personal attacks. The stream of derogatory personal put-downs listed above is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia in general, or in this subject area specifically. Had it been just once or twice, possibly in the heat of the moment, I would have stopped at just giving you a warning. But you continued and have shown no sign of engaging in civil discussion or listening to what experienced Wikipedia editors are explaining to you.

In the light of all that, I have blocked you from editing the Coronavirus disease 2019 article and its talk page. Please be warned that any continuation of the approach you have demonstrated so far at other pages will be met with further sanctions.

If you wish to appeal this block, you can use {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on this talk page, and someone else will review it. To be successful, I suggest an appeal would need to make a convincing case that you will a) stop trying to include fringe theories in Covid-19 articles, b) stop trying to use unacceptable sources, and c) seriously change the way you engage in discussions with other people. Please also see WP:GAB for more guidance on appealing a block.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have now made this an indefinite sitewide block - anyone considering an unblock, please contact me for further information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)