User talk:Fearonewhohasnothingtolose

Welcome!
Hello, Fearonewhohasnothingtolose, 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 complete 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! El_C 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interests declaration
Hello, Fearonewhohasnothingtolose. 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 or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. El_C 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Inproper "sock puppet" designation with no avenue to appeal
I have nothing to do with this user: " This account is a suspected sock puppet of Mdanman2"

How do I appeal it and who suspected me ? Also please look at the rest of my explanations and somewhere provide me with a response to my assertions.

Fearonewhohasnothingtolose (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 00:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, how do I have a conversation / talk / message with you? Please understand a few things regarding my edits, 1. How is it on the Keith Fink page one can claim many students feel this way, and why is it necessary to have a quote hosted on a dropbox account of a single student's supposed review of the course? It makes absolutely no sense, and is not befitting of Wikipedia. Basically the post itself is taking us for a bunch of morons that it is clear self promotion.

2. How is my edit where I added the fact that Fink's class that is listed as one of the top 25 best classes at UCLA, is also listed as one of the top 25 easiest classes at UCLA? I clicked on the source link and was SHOCKED that this fact was not mentioned alongside it. I am pretty sure even an elementary school child could draw the link that perhaps because the course is one of the easiest classes at UCLA it is also referred to as one of the best.

I made one edit, and was trying to do an explanation of the edit, and for that you simply dismissed my work as not helpful, claimed I have a conflict of interest, banned me, and did not even give me an opportunity to explain myself or my position. This is very unfair. I started on this article and wanted to balance it out. Where can we have a discussion about it and perhaps suggest different variants that would make the article more balanced and less promotional? Perhaps my changes were too harsh, I can accept that. However the current version is way way way too puffery.

So I am new to Wikipedia and trying to figure out how to use it. I was adding an explanation of why I did my edit, and was trying to do a new line and did shift + enter and it submitted by accident twice, not on purpose.

I am trying to have a page / discussion about the Legal section of the Keith Fink page, I opened it up and saw the edit history, and it is pretty blatantly clear that the article has been beyond manipulated several times for self promotion.


 * I changed "many" to "some" as promotional, and, as mentioned below your unblock request, I also removed the top-25 bit, entirely, also as promotional. Finally, I added the template to the top of the article because I, too, am concerned that it remains promotional. As for the block, that was a checkuser block, so your unblock request below is invalid. No individual admin can grant your request — only a functionary or the Arbitration Committee can do so. El_C 01:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

EL_C Please read this message, as well as Bbb23: Unfair labeling of my account and unwillingness to consider the validity of my points raised.
In regards to the content, I removed the top-25 bit entirely, as promotional. I also made several other changes to curtail the article's promotional nature. See my response above for details about that. See also my explanation as to why your unblock request is invalid as such. El_C 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Further on ublocking
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account.