Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Perry Expedition, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but one of the most important is: you do not appear to have ever talked to David Epstein with this account. Is there another one you've been using? Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, you were User:45.50.231.56 but then made an account. That explains it. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ISTCC. 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Please don't try to use Wikipedia to publicise your own ideas. JBW (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since receiving the message above you have made another attempt to get Wikipedia to publicise your paper. If you continue to edit in violation of Wikipedia's policy against use of Wikipedia for promotion, or any other policies or guidelines that you have been informed of, you are very likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because of your persistently trying to get Wikipedia to publicise your work and, in order to do so, your endless hammering away at trying to persuade editors to accept the place where you have published it accepted as a reliable source, your attempt to personalise your campaign by representing it as a behavioural problem of an editor who explained your mistakes to you, your endless forum shopping... in short, because of endless unconstructive editing which wastes time of editors who could have spent it on more worthwhile tasks, and which also wastes your own time, because you are never going to achieve what you are tying to achieve.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

All actions I have taken to challenge a decision by an editor were dictated or required by the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Any communications directly with a person were in response to the commentor’s statements. All my comments have been civil and fact based. ISTCC (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Arbitration is not the first step in dispute resolution, it's the last after everything else is exhausted. As noted, you're not going to achieve what you wish to achieve- this isn't the place to publicize your work. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2024 (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.

@JBW: Please give specific information. What specific edit(s)? What specific page(s). ISTCC (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of your editing history, both from this account and from IP editing without using an account, is visible: none of it has been deleted. Therefore you can check there and find the relevant edits as easily as I can, so I see no reason to spend my time finding them for you. However, here is a link to a talk page section in which you openly admit to part of your endless persistence in plugging your campaign, including your persistent harassment of an editor. JBW (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]