User talk:Davidgress920

This is Davidgress920's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 9)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, User:Jacobariel91/sandbox, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Davidgress920/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Davidgress920/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidgress920! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bkissin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2022 (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).

Davidgress920 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Jpgordon Hi - I hope this message finds you healthy and well. I woke up this morning to find out your account had blocked me - may I ask what the reason was for this? I see the reason cited as abusing multiple accounts, particularly that for user "Jacobariel91"? This is not my account - I don't know who they are and I have never interacted with them. I created my Wikipedia account a few weeks ago to move my editorial profession online to help expand the content community here. I was reading the Admin pages to learn about what is / is not allowed on this site, and I saw a lot of conversation around their account in the Admin pages, and that one of their submitted drafts "Electreon Wireless" had been rejected several times (I also started skimming some of their other rejected content, to learn more about the reasoning of why it was rejected, hoping I could contribute - appropriately - to the pages). As an independent cleantech journalist and editor, I have contributed to EVInsider, Electrive, Green Car Reports, and Clean Technica editorials about electric vehicles and charging stations, and know very much about Electreon Wireless (I had been following them since their pilot announcement last year in Tel Aviv), and thus picked up the rejected draft and took it upon myself to revise the text (overall, some sources needed updating, and the language needed to be in a slightly more neutral point of view to be in a more "unbiased style, free from puffery" which is exactly what the Wikipedia guidelines here call for - in fact I used these guidelines exactly when updating the rejected text). It worked! As it appears Timtrent approved the article for mainspace, though Bbb23 then deleted it? What's going on here between the reviewers? Is there a contention/disagreement amongst the admins/reviewers about this particular company? I would hope not, and that each submitted draft is assessed fairly and according to the guidelines I cited earlier (anyone familiar with EVs knows this is a notable company). Is electric vehicles a forbidden subject to edit - is that why I was blocked? I didn't know that and I will happily refrain from writing about the topic if that's the case to avoid getting blocked, but the current claim that I am holding multiple accounts is absolutely inaccurate. How can I prove this, and more so, how can I remove this block? Any advise you can provide is valued, thank you! Davidgress920 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Jacobariel91, others. The technical evidence is pretty unequivocal here. Yamla (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2022 (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.

I reviewed the draft in good faith. I accepted it because it seemed to me to have a better than 50% probability of not beingh subject to an immediate and ordinary deletion process. There is no topic bar against clean technology. The deletion and blocking is is a techncial matter of whether you are or are not the same editor as the other one. I do not have the toolset here to answer your questions over this. Please continue to be patient. An administrator will check this matter shortly. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent thank you for your reply! I appreciate the feedback. I will continue to be patient to have another administrator review this case - it was just very puzzling to me when I woke up to see this block. I appreciate your explanation over the matter. Also, do you happen to know the reasons why the page you approved was then deleted? I even updated the page further per your comments to enhance the quality of the sources. I am only asking as I was thrilled to see my edits getting approved (I am hoping to build more credits and history of approved edits on this site as I start my journey here - I want to work my way up to admin/reviewer one day), but then saddened to see that my approved edits were deleted without a specific explanation. I followed the guidelines here and would appreciate any feedback on why the approved submission that I received got deleted so that I can apply them in future updates to other pages - but perhaps that's a question for Bbb23? Could the draft be re-reviewed - in good faith as you noted - by yourself and other editors collaboratively? (also happy to hear there is no topic ban on clean tech - since it is my passion). Thanks again - Davidgress920 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgress920 The reason for deletion is that a page created by one suspected of or proven of block evasion is deleted as a matter of policy. Black evasion happens when a new account (or an IP address) is used to circumvent a block on a prior user. That was the technical explanation.

The problem arises that @Yamla has confirmed by technical means, things I am not privy to, that this account of yours has been confirmed to be that of the previously blocked editor. I have no idea, now, what routes are open to you if you are a different editor, nor how you might seek to prove that you are not that editor. It is unlikely that false positives happen, but I am sure they do. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:40, 10 February 2022 (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).

Davidgress920 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Timtrent thank you for the explanation - I understand the reasoning now. Yamla Are you aware of if there is a way to confirm that I am not the same user as Jacobariel91. It's possible the IPs of our accounts are the same if we use the same proxy server or logged into the same network. I am based in Atlanta, GA and created my Wikipedia from a WeWork whose network and proxy servers are accessed by thousands perhaps on the daily. If Jacobariel91 is located in the same city and worked/was working from the same space - then that could very well be an explanation for IPs. In any case, can Yamla or Jpgordon please provide direction on how I can prove Jacobariel91 is not my account? Davidgress920 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Explanation given by Davidgress920 is not credible. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:31, 11 February 2022 (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.

Appealing a block[edit]

I am continuing to assume that what you say is correct, though it is unlikely that our experts in this area have made a technical error.

Be aware that you do not get a great number of attempts at this. Wikipedia:Appealing a block shows you all the routes of block appeal. It points you to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. If what you have said is, however, not correct, none of these routes will help you.

This is the end of the help I am able to give you. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is absolutely where we should start with these types of issues. The IP address conflict could potentially be as Davidgress920 has suggested. Both accounts have stated they are from Atlanta GA. However, coupled with the pattern of editing it is absolutely not credible. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of a newly registered account (less than 24 hours from registering) "happening" upon an ANI discussion about an editor from the same city in GA, with the same IP address, with the same passion for an obscure Israeli startup company, submitting an identical AFC... appealing his block in perfect wiki markup... Call me a cynic... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Jim and the soapdish Thank you for your explanation - I can understand your position, however I made my account nearly 2 weeks ago, the ANI discussion regarding Jacobariel91 showed to have been initiated a few days ago. My "passion" for submitting the Electreon page was only because I had seen it had been rejected and there was a lot of talk about it on the ANI (you can read my original unblock request explaining everything) and I wanted to start incorporating edit knowledge I learned when joining this site. I really wish there was a way to prove I am not the same account - if you are aware of any, please let me know. Thanks for your consideration> timtrent Thank you for providing those links - I will look into them. Hopefully there will be another administrator who can also review this unblock request in the meantime - I am happy to provide any other requested evidence to attempt to prove I am not the same account. It's unfortunate this has to be my initial experience with the site which I was looking forward to having joined a few weeks ago. Regardless, thank you for your guidance, I know everything will be sorted out. Davidgress920 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You created your account on January 31, but your first edit was on February 9. BTW, the page you created and the one created by User:HalfwayThere100 are eerily similar, particularly in structure (how the article is sectioned). The leads are the same, the infoboxes are identical, and the remainder of the two pages are substantively the same. I'm sure you'll deny that that account is yours, too. BTW, I'm getting close to revoking talk page access because you have nothing new to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 Thanks for the reply - yes, that's the correct account creation date and what I was trying to explain to Catfish Jim and the soapdish (thanks for giving the date). I already explained the reasoning for the dates and why I took on the editing when I did (see my original unblock request). I really wish there was a way to prove I am the sole owner of this account and only this account - if there is, please let me know. Your welcome to block whatever more you like, though it wouldnt be the most professional - I am only trying to have a discussion/conversation on what my possible avenues are here to prove the accusations in the block are wrong. Respectful, civil conversation. Honestly though, if there is a way I can prove I am the sole owner of only this account , please do let me know - I am more than happy to submit any evidence needed. I am new to this site and am still trying to learn how alot of how the processes work. Any valued contribution you can provide regarding me proving my account ownership would be most appreciated. Thank you for your consideration Davidgress920 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, less than 24 hours from your first post rather than from when you registered. It makes little difference to the nuance of what I've explained above. It simply is not credible that you are not connected to the account which you share IP addresses with. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Jim and the soapdish Thank you for the reply - please read my original unblock request above (the first one) - I explain everything in there as to why I took on editing and submitting the article when I did. But of course, I can only explain so many times - the rest is on others in the community here to believe me. If you don't , of course you are entitled to that. But again, if there is any evidence I can provide that can prove I am the sole owner of this account and this account only , do let me know! Davidgress920 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very characteristic way of using wiki markup, that would be entirely alien to a new user but is identical to how Jacobariel91 edits. You also have a very idiomatic way of using a hyphen incorrectly in place of a period/full stop. Just like Jacobariel91 does. You can stop the pretence now. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Jim and the soapdish You are entitled to believe what you want, like I said. It's just on me to tell the truth, which I have been trying to do. I have no way of proving it, and that's what I'd like to do. If you are aware of any ways, please tell me. Also, again, please read my original unblock request (the first one) because a few of the points you raised are addressed in there (thank you for raising them since it's important that I do address your questions and doubts). Davidgress920 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]