User talk:83.215.123.233

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Non-coding RNA. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (83.215.123.233) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome!  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Query
Hi, I've noticed that all your edits seem to be adding references to papers published by one author - Guenther Witzany - whilst this is not obviously not forbidden it is slightly suspicious and makes me wonder what the purpose of these edits is. Please be aware that this could be seen as spamming and that if you are the author, you have a conflict of interest. Please reply below if you have any queries. Thank you. Smartse (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Upon further investigation I see that this is nothing new, as the same has been done by and you were warned in 2006 anout this. I therefore must issue this warning:

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, 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. Smartse (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a note to anyone who comes here from my note in edit summaries: I've removed all references that I found searching from searching for "witzany" - this was a clear case of refspam as the edits did not add any content and where often in topics that had nothing to do with the title of the paper referenced. I also found the account and IP  too. Smartse (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And another: (4im warned). Smartse (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not correct: The theory of biocommunication based on three leveled semiotics is an original approach which - in contrast to bioinformatics, biolinguistics, biosemiotics and semiotics - integrates pragmatic turn results. Therefore biocommunication is inherently interconnected with pragmatics. This means biocommunicative empirical investigations on bacteria, plants, animals (e.g. bees, corals), fungi focus on real live scenarios in which context determines meaning functions of signals. At the present time this concept has no counter concept in biology and is an innovative approach. Some "mind police" eliminates all works that I wrote and published in serious scientific journals and publishing houses of various wikipedia sites. Ynaztiw

This reminds me on mind police, especially in the contexts of George Orwell or Aldous Huxley. The references clearly added complete new insights into these fields. But this doesn't matter to mind police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynastiw (talk • contribs)
 * The thought police in the novel 1984, to which I assume you are referring, aim to control the thoughts of the people, preventing negative ideas about Big Brother. No-one here is trying to prosecute you based on your opinions. To be blunt, you're opinions are your own and are of no concern to us. If you take a look at our Conflict of Interest Policy you will understand why your actions have breached wikipedia policy  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 17:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

But you act like Big Brother. If you would have read the scientific articles that I posted, they contribute essential new perspectives to various fields which are informative for researchers in these fields. I doubt that you are a researcher in this field but Im shure you sympathize with Big Brother ideologies.


 * Ynaztiw et all: I disagree with your assessments of refspam above.  I believe what the contributor should have done in the instance of his/her edit to Pragmatics was to open up a new section or sub-section within the article with a title such as: 'Non-linguistic examples', where new, but valid material is introduced into a topic-specific article. In this case the article was topic-specific to linguistics, and the pragmatic material inserted was biological -but that doesn't make it illegal within an article, only poorly framed.  Please do not bite newcomers to our collective works.  Thanks and best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, User:Ynaztiw is another account used by this IP. Secondly, this user has only contributed links to his own material using multiple accounts on multiple pages (on multiple language wikis) for the past two years, and he is no certainly newcomer. For more information see this discussion  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely not a newcomer. There is a long history here of adding references that have never been cited in inappropriately prominent locations (eg. compare the citation counts in googlescholar for these references). Also edit warring when these are reverted (eg. here). --Paul (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of administrators noticeboard discussion regarding your edits
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Smartse (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (Archived here) Smartse (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

January 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Plant pathology, you may be blocked from editing. ''You are adding refs to Witzany to many articles, implying conflict of interest. ''

- I see this happened before some years ago, the user is back to his old tricks seemingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Plasmid. 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Soil microbiology, 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

BOOKSPAM
If you don't explain why you are adding book citations in the wp:Edit summary, you are libel to be blocked for wp:BOOKSPAM. Also, please note that most, if not all of your additions have been undone. Jim1138 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This is no trick. This is no spam. If you would reresent some expertise in this field you would notice this is relevant research results. Obviously you like to work as Orwellian operator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.215.123.233 (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Happy new year. Please be aware that attacking other editors is not allowed here. You are however being dealt with perfectly correctly: Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and nobody may use it to attempt to promote books, products or businesses. If you are intending to apply expertise across the field, then demonstrate it by adding citations to books and papers unrelated to Witzany, which constitute the vast majority of the field, and everybody will be happy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be confusion. I do not promote books, products or businesses. I added research results which are not available by other authors. Unfortunately the books I edited share up until 20-30 different authors with different expertise.


 * Well, we can only go by how it appears. You suddenly and rapidly added many links, all to Witzany, just as you had done, attracting similar consternation, back in 2010, and indeed also in 2006. If you had added a variety of links to multiple unrelated sources, there would have been no problem. As it is, we have only your unverifiable protestations to go on that you are acting in good faith, against the undeniable evidence of your actions. Change your behaviour and the problem will melt away. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Given the 10 year period over which they've been refspamming from here I think it is time we called it a day. They either don't get the point about what the problem is with only citing their own work, or feel that adding citations to their own work is more important than contributing productively. Either way, WP:NOTHERE applies and I'll block accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year 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:. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that they are also using so I have blocked that too. SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know this as all that read Snowdon papers. The Big Brother agents act very strictly and nobody can control them. They have the power about "life" and "death". If someone criticizes them, they say: This is attack that has to be prevented. Its a pity that Wikipedia has occupied by "little" "experts". But in the long run, these little experts remain as senseless livelihoods. Congratulations!
 * Nonsense. We are all subject to the same policies as you, we do not claim expert knowledge but rely on published sources, and we are all unpaid volunteers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)