User talk:Biomimix

Biomimix, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Biomimix! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Hello, Biomimix. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest at Laura Skandera Trombley[edit]

Hello, Biomimix. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Laura Skandera Trombley, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. 32.218.35.22 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Laura Skandera Trombley, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to WrinklesTheDog and her amazing adventures has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: WrinklesTheDog and her amazing adventures was changed by Biomimix (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.905051 on 2017-10-29T20:44:35+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WrinklesTheDog and her amazing adventures. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ElKevbo (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent vandalism. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley. Since you had some involvement with the Dr. Laura Skandera Trombley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biomimix. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I have been unduly blocked from editing due to the incorrect conclusion that I have been using multiple accounts. I have only ever posted or made edits from ONE SINGLE account Biomimix. My edits have been in good faith to protect the integrity of a "Biography of a Living Person" from an over zealous contributor that has been interpreting contentious material out of context and I believe has taken a personally biased and partial interest in the subject of the biography. I AM NOT the subject of the biography as asserted by ElKevbo. I was flagged for "vandalism" after an edit as I am not yet familiar with all of the Wiki rules and admit, it was a rookie mistake. Please consider unblocking my account on the basis of conjecture and incorrect accusation of the use of multiple accounts with the intent to cause harm. Thank you. Biomimix (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you prefer, you can instead consider yourself blocked for vandalism. There's no way you could in good faith have believed that renaming the article on Trombley "WrinklesTheDog and her amazing adventures" would improve the encyclopedia, or that blanking it would. You have also a history of several months of blatantly promoting Trombley; suspecting a conflict of interest seems entirely warranted. Huon (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2017 (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.

Query Could you explain This? It seems a bit odd. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

You're reasons for concluding that my "flagged vandalism' accusation for changing Trombley's page to "wrinkles the dog and her amazing adventures" as malicious is understandable, considering you are ignorant to certain facts. Laura Trombley has a dog named Wrinkles and they in fact have amazing adventures together. This fact would have been supported with articles and photo evidence had I not been blocked. You also make no attempt to address my assertion that another editor (Elkevbo) has taken a personal and biased interest in the subject of the biography and continually re-posts contentious material interpreted out of context, to the point of borderline harassment. Why is this overlooked? All of my edits were made as an attempt to arrest this individuals biased contributions. You also claim I have a months long track record of apparent COI violations. This conclusion is also false. I do not know the subject of the biography but I do have first hand knowledge of the controversial events that are the subject of the frequent edits. There is apparently no conduit made for individuals that are in possession of factual information that has not been made public regarding this individuals public profile. Again, every one of your conclusions regarding my intentions are false and based on ignorance of certain facts. Although exercising your authority to block me was the easiest reaction to this situation, it was also a knee jerk reaction of incredulity and devoid of any type of inquisitive investigation or fact finding. Please reconsider my request to unblock my account so I can support my assertions with factual, accurate information. Thank you. Biomimix (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your attempt to justify changing the name of a biography to "wrinkles the dog and her amazing adventures" is laughable. On top of that you blanked the article twice. There's no way you're going to be unblocked until you recognize your mistakes. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2018 (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.