Triangularsunset

Welcome!

Hello, Triangularsunset, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sagecandor (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martin D-35 (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheSandDoctor was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 Draft:Martin D-35 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Triangularsunset, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Device-guided breathing

The article Device-guided breathing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One source that doesn't even start to neet WP:MEDRS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Martin D-35 concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Martin D-35, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Martin D-35

Hello, Triangularsunset. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Martin D-35".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Shaving cream, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 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. Dr. K. 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.   -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

reason to be unblocked is because not one link has been spam, compare my references to the others and they are in line, review requested of all my edits

Decline reason:

I picked four edits at random. This and this and this and this. All were inappropriate, in violation of WP:EL and WP:RS. Honestly, it looks like you are just here to violate WP:SPAM, but it's at least plausible you don't have a conflict of interest, that you have nothing to do with these sites. Yamla (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the page i referenced supported this: television series created by Laeta Kalogridis[1]....same with every one of the others...not sure why you are claiming them to be spam? a) what do they promote, and does not the referenced page support whatever associated statement in the wiki-article...please explain Triangularsunset (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you genuinely believe a website whose URL ends in "fabian-strategy-in-business.html" is a reliable source that can improve our coverage of Hannibal, I have to conclude that you lack the competence required to edit Wikipedia. The fact that you proceeded to add the same websites to multiple articles where it might sound halfways plausible indicates that your purpose was to add links to those websites, not to improve the articles. Huon (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

If it is deemed that this entire account is set up as a spam account, can someone delete all of my edits? And the entire account. I would rather have it all deleted than have this indefinitely blocked and labelled a spam account...

Just a note - accounts cannot be deleted for technical reasons (see: Wikipedia:FAQ#How_do_I_change_my_username/delete_my_account?). Typically, edits are not deleted either for attribution reasons. When you make an edit, at the bottom of the page right above the publish changes button, you agree to irrevocably release your contribution under CC BY-SA 3.0, and GFDL. SQL^{Query me!} 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim and Yamla: Can either of you clarify why you think this editor's edits have been spam? I have checked a large number of the edits, and it seems to me that the vast majority of the links were references to web sites which genuinely did support content to which they were attached. I found a few exceptions, but they looked like good faith mistakes rather than spamming: for example in one edit Triangularsunset linked to a Netflix film rather than to a source about the film, but that kind of mistake is very common indeed among editors with limited experience. Also, although in some cases there were numerous links to the same web site, in all cases that I saw that could be explained by the simple fact that the web sites in question had content relevant to several articles. I did not see any of the unmistakable signs of people who come here to spam links into articles, such as persistently adding links either to jut one site or to a very small number of sites, or such as adding fake references that don't support the content they are attached to. If you really do have convincing reasons to believe that the edits were spam then the block should stay, but I honestly cannot see anything that couldn't be easily good faith attempts to improve the referencing of the articles, or (less often) to improve their content. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: The great majority of this account's edits were adding spam sources to articles. This user has repeatedly spammed websites such as "American Musical Supply" "99centrazor.com", "wishmachinery.com", "coolforests.org", "thediamondringreview.com" etc. to many articles. Some of these links are in hosting domains that are for sale. He even spammed Stephen Hawking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with spacemonk.com. If we AGF that all this activity was created because of some misunderstanding of WP:RS, we have to conclude that this user has no idea about what constitutes a reliable source, or, conversely, what is commercial linkspam. In either case, this is a rather big problem. Dr. K. 22:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: thank you for noticing that in not one single edit is there any evidence that i spammed. i will admit i am new to this and i thought i was finding pages that supported a fact or mention of something on wikipedia pages. i don't see how any of it is commercial, the sites that Dr. K mention included. So, it is a big deal to see my whole account blocked.

@Dr.K.: I still don't understand your first warning before i got blocked, i was adding references that went straight to a glossary that supported what i was referencing. Over my 100 edits, i thought i had added some great value, and by the way that site was not for sale when i posted. Sometimes the content on the pages i sited had to be accessed by scrolling down, but it all seemed right to me. I had studied how other references were used and i thought i was doing the exact same thing. Triangularsunset (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)triangularsunset

(edit conflict) You got a final warning, because by the time I had detected your activity, you had already serially spammed the "99centrazor.com" link to a large number of shaving-related articles, as well as other spam links to other articles, and you had to be stopped. But, even after my level-4 warning you continued your spamming. This shows a continuing inability to comply with the WP:SPAM, and WP:RELIABLESOURCES guidelines of this wiki, ergo the indefinite block. Dr. K. 02:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: also, you said i must not understand what is link spam, commercial, etc...I would agree with you about that, if JamesBWatson had not just said what i was doing except a few mistakes were fine, so now i'm feeling very attacked. I had read the veteran editors on wikipedia were vicious about banning newbies without teaching, but i had not experienced that until now. I hope this case can be archived and used as demonstration of how someone like me can make what seemed to be good edits only to have the whole account blocked when i did so much work. I will say it makes me not want to ever contribute again...which you would probably be happy about if I were making a mistake everytime, but then are you saying @JamesBWatson is wrong?

I see you have started the personal attacks. This will not get you too far. You have to accept that newbie, or not, you serially and methodically defaced many articles with obvious and clear WP:SPAM. No feigning of ignorance at this late stage will absolve you of this responsibility. As far as what James was thinking when he was defending you, you should ask him, not me. Dr. K. 02:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: it seems obvious what James was thinking, don't you think? He said clearly that he reviewed many of my edits and they look fine. Is James a trusted and experienced editor? If yes, then why don't you respect that defense? Sounds like i am a case of confirmation bias...newbies must be spammers so of course triangularsunset is a spammer! How would you say I started a personal attack? Did I call you a name? Or is this another false accusation like you calling me a spammer. The behavior I am witnessing here seems like paranoia, especially when someone like James drops in and questions it all. A witchhunt if you will that may make you feel like you're defending wikipedia when in fact a culture no one would want to be a part of is being perpetuated (hence the decline in interest in being an editor)...who would want to join a community where they do a lot of hard work only to be spoken to like this: "You have to accept that newbie..."

Please don't feign ignorance. Have you forgotten what you wrote above? Let me remind you: I had read the veteran editors on wikipedia were vicious about banning newbies without teaching, but i had not experienced that until now. Do I really have to remind you that calling editors "vicious" is a very nasty personal attack? As far as James, there is nothing wrong with him having an opinion. Everyone has an opinion. Trust or experience has nothing to do with their opinion being accepted automatically just because they are trusted or experienced. Dr. K. 02:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I came to the same conclusion as Dr.K.. Most of the links looked like spam to me. If you feel I am in error, please feel free to unblock. That is the purpose of having another admin review the block after all. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, it is evident that I was a lone voice crying in the wilderness, with an unmistakable consensus that you were spamming. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: James: I appreciate your thorough examination, and the time it took, not to mention the courage required to voice an unpopular opinion amidst the feeding frenzy. I understand that some of the links I referenced were not from mainstream publications, but I don't think that constitutes spam, nor comes close to being reason enough to shut down my account. It's a pretty extreme reaction, I think, perhaps akin to me likening the Wikipedia community to Nazis who can't tolerate anything beyond the ideal they set for themselves. But, alas, that is not the case, because I can at least leave without getting gassed (though I can't say the same for my account).

Enough of that nonsense. Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)