User talk:Badambook

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Badambook. 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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. MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not receive these messages until just now. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Can the edit remain, without the hyperlink? Badambook (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cannot use self published books as sources. MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear to be true: see the following quote taken from this page

Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works - Wikipedia

"A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published." Badambook (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All i want to note is that one author espoused a different view - it is about the publication itself taking an alternative view Badambook (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a statement concerning the source itself - if Wikipedia were to write a biography about you, we could use it on that article. And there is the important matter of proper weight. Wikipedia simply doesn't cover peoples self-published statements. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source please? the source i provided indicates otherwise Badambook (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, this view was the subject of public litigation:

Adam v. Barr, 18-CV-2106 (AJN) | Casetext Search + Citator Badambook (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are currently blocked should be a indication for you that your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is incorrect. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm blocked because i never received the messages so i kept reposting the same thing Badambook (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to appeal the block for that reason. I agree to comply with wikipedia's community standards. I never intended not to. It was the result of my being a novice editor, and as such I never knew that notifications were sent regarding problematic posts. Had I seen them i would have understood and acted accordingly, as I seek to now. Badambook (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to WP:wikilawyer your way into including your spam links is not an effective approach to requesting unblocking. You will not be unblocked to link to, edit about, or otherwise promote your work. And you trying to make legal arguemets is grounds for blocking in and of itself. Wikipedia is a curated encyclopedia with rules for inclusion. Rules you have violated. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Id like to appeal the block because i never received the rejection and warning messages regarding my posts so i kept reposting the same thing. I agree to comply with wikipedia's community standards. I never intended not to. It was the result of my being a novice editor, and as such I never knew that notifications were sent regarding problematic posts. Had I seen them i would have understood and acted accordingly, as I seek to now.

Decline reason:

Per discusion above. Please describe what non conflict of interest, non promotional edits you would make. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2024 (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.

At this point i do not have an edit. if my edits were noncompliant i accept that and apologize. If I have suggested edits in future I am happy to have them reviewed for proper compliance and will accept the determinations of the wiki editors

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).

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

Request reason:

as a novice editor i never received the warnings on my noncompliant posts. had a seen them i would have stopped and addressed the issue. At this point i do not have an edit. if my edits were noncompliant i accept that and apologize. If I have suggested edits in future I am happy to have them reviewed for proper compliance and will accept the determinations of the wiki editors

Decline reason:

As you have no planned edits, there's no reason to consider lifting the block. Do not make another request until you have specific, non-trivial edits you can demonstrate. Yamla (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2024 (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.

would an acceptable edit be an indication that one individual defended the entheogenic use of cannabis in court, based on his belief that cannabis has value in stimulating religio-mystic experience? (see https://casetext.com/case/adam-v-barr-1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badambook (talk • contribs)

I don't understand what you mean with "his" belief. Yamla's belief? Is Yamla a pothead? And no, "casetext", that's primary documents, court documents in this case, and here we work with secondary sourcing. Also, if you want to get unblocked, an administrator is going to do it, and most of them are grumpy old people who place value in proper writing--with capitals, proper punctuation, a signature, etc. Just a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No. See WP:RS. Nor have you specified what specific change you'd make to which specific article. And it's hard to see how that particular case is at all notable. Maybe it is, but you most certainly haven't demonstrated that (again, see WP:RS). I hope you stop, take the time to actually read and understand our policies before making another suggestion. By the way, Drmies, that court case is certainly not my belief. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Registering another account (User:Temperatehorse) to evade your block and continue adding your book is not going to work. MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Badambook (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]