User talk:80.194.119.171

October 2021[edit]

Hello, 80.194.119.171. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

Graham87 02:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. 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 ~~~~}}.

Graham87 14:07, 22 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Tha above mentioed editor has made a huge mistake in judgement and I strongly appeal against this blockage and it's consequences and I urge to undo recently made changes. The main reason why is because I have improved several facts on wikipedia pages as per my knowledge, expertise and evidence which comes from the literature published by me and my co-authors. Therefore, I cannot discuss the facts from other publication but I can bring facts with evidence presented in publications within perr-reviewed journals. In conclusion, this does not have anything with self-advertising or promotion, my activity was only to improve your webpage due to lack of evidence and wrongly written facts as you have several mistakes and this is not safe. In addition, I cannot write about environment, music or design, but, as per my knowledge, I can definitely write about my area of expertise and topics that I am studying, researching and developing. Therefore, it looks like someone seems to prevent experts from changing the content of your webpages, while anyone can write and publish nonsense on your link that does not have any evidence or proof.80.194.119.171 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the problems with your violations of WP:COI. You are welcome to make a new unblock request after reading that, explaining how your future edits would comply with WP:COI. Yamla (talk) 17:15, 22 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

As suggested, I have read the WP:COI with great interest. In regards to the COI, I may confirm that my intention was not self-promoting any of my articles nor will be in future. If I cited any of my articles, it was only to refer to the evidence to the best of my knowledge as I have edited several topics in which I have found some mistakes or lack of supporting evidence. It is not allowed to publish any statements in science without the support by evidence, which means without referring to the journal, book or article accordingly. Therefore, I can confirm that my future edits/posts, if there will be any, will not include self-promoting or self-citing. IF I decide to improve any of your online content, it will be with facts and supported by the best evidence. However, I request to unblock my account and to undo some of the deleted content as there is a missing important evidence again on your platform. Mr. Davorin Sef Consultant Cardiac Surgeon 80.194.119.171 (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You tell us that you will avoid self-promotion and self-citing, but I would want to see an agreement to make edit requests for edits related to your field or research and/or to know if you want to contribute to Wikipedia in unrelated areas. I think it is possible for you to be unblocked, but this isn't there yet. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 25 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I do not understand your point and I find it a bit rude. I have provided a professional explanation on behalf of my 15 years of professional practice and expertize, but on the other hand I received 1 unjustified sentence from anonymous employee. I have already explained that I do not have any interests in your statements such as self-promoting and self-citation! Even more, if I would make any further mistake - you are able to block my activity, but in this case I could suspect on conflict of interest from your part as you did not acknowledge there were mistakes on your webpage/platform as there are many to correct. As per previous request, I have explained clearly that my future edits would comply with WP:COI as, I repeat, I do not have interests in self promoting.80.194.119.171 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One unblock request open at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 28 October 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.

Wikipedia editors are not employees, we are volunteers doing things here on our own time. You have not been "sentenced" as blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. No rudeness was intended, and I apologize, but we must be assured that the conduct will not repeat. As I said, please tell how you will comply with WP:COI specifically. I've already mentioned one aspect of this above. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment has reflected on a lack of professionalism and expertize in particular field. As I said, I will comply with WP:COI in a way that I will not perform self-citation or self-promotion with my edits, if there will be any in future.

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).

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

Request reason:

My comment has reflected on a lack of professionalism and expertize in particular field. As I said, I will comply with WP:COI in a way that I will not perform self-citation or self-promotion with my edits, if there will be any in future.80.194.119.171 (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 11:01, 11 November 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.

Regarding the reply from 28.10 I have just seen - is this platform really consisted of jockers?! Is this a way to reply?! I have requested unblock and provided valid arguments. 80.194.119.171 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You only need one open request at a time, additional comments should be standard, unformatted comments like this one. Your request is open and pending. Administrators are volunteers who do what they can when they can, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.