Eagleeye321

Welcome!

Hello, Eagleeye321, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Café de Paris (London) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Lard Almighty (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Eagleeye321. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Sanjay Shah, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• 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 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).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You are still not complying with these requirements. Please do so or you will be prevented from editing. SmartSE (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As instructed above, if you wish to make changes to the Shah article, please suggest them on the talk page. There's more explanation here: Template:Request_edit#How_to_use. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Eagleeye321, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Sanjay Shah have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2020 (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).

Eagleeye321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear SmartSE and other administrators, I request to be unblocked. As you can see, I am inexperienced at editing and was not aware I wasn't following editing guidelines. I will be more careful and I request to be unblocked. I will also not edit the pages I have been blocked for for three months from being unblocked. Eagleeye321 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2020 (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).

Eagleeye321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am a recently appointed editor and previously I was not aware of the guidelines which I have inadvertently breached. I can hereby confirm that I understand the reasons for being blocked (by inappropriately adding content to the page in question by copy/pasting news articles, and attempting to add content to whitewash the page, I won't continue to cause damage or disruption and I will make contributions to improve Wikipedia by acting neutrally and researching any subject thoroughly with proper referencing, and adhering to the guidelines for editingEagleeye321 (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This appeal neither clearly discloses your conflict of interest or compensation, nor is it specific enough. Please clearly agree not to edit about Sanjay Shah or Autism Rocks, not just for three months (as proposed in your first appeal), but instead forever. Please consider explicitly agreeing to an indefinite-duration topic ban about Sanjay Shah and Autism Rocks. Also, please be more specific about which topics you would like to edit about instead. Provide examples: Which article, which edits? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2020 (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.

unblock discussion

"Recently appointed editor"? Would you mind explaining that? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Oh. As you represent Sanjay Shah, please read and heed WP:PAID. You must not edit about that subject directly, though you may suggest edits. I see you are blocked for it. What other subjects would you care to edit about? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And now, a few words on sourcing. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." This precludes anything controlled by a subject, such as their web sites and press releases. Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

NOTE to Reviewing Admin: Eagleeye321 is a COI editor with a single purpose editing history that shows multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. Almost all of their edits have required reversion. Any unblocking of this account should include a ban on all edits on any page relating to the Sanjay Shah, broadly construed. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

{unblock|reason= Dear all, I am a close relative of the subject so I am not paid per se. I do have a conflict of interest which I believe I declared on each edit. I believe the current page's portrayal is not balanced hence the edits. The subject has been under criminal investigation by the Danish Police since 2015 and was interviewed by them in September 2019 for three days and there has been no indictments of him or anyone who worked for him nor business associates. I have noticed that some material has been posted and reversions made by individuals with connections to Denmark, so perhaps they are not acting neutrally. One example is "Cactuswriter", who spent "several years in Denmark" and no doubt watches this page. Maybe he or she is influenced by the Danish press reporting on the subject who are in my opinion are not neutral. I believe the page was also created by a probable Danish individual called "Gloegg~enwiki" who created the page and then deleted his/her profile. Another such editor is "E.M.Gregory" who has been blocked as a sock puppet. "Valentinian" is another probable Danish editor, who on their page says "I was hugely involved with Wikiprojects Denmark". Several editors have added content who don't exist on Wikipedia anymore. I have proposed a page deletion which was opposed by "Icewhiz" who is now blocked, and "Cactuswriter" who I have mentioned above. In summary, the page has largely been contributed to by pro-Danish editors who in my opinion have been influenced by the Danish press and not truly neutral. I have wondered why a page for this subject was created when he is only notable for the Danish Dividend Tax Scandal. The reason in my opinion is to damage his reputation. I stated above that I am a recently appointed editor, and I think I was made editor sometime in 2019 but I can't see when exactly in my account. I would like to continue to be an editor and learn more about the policies in time. My interests are dogs, in particular labrador retrievers, tropical reef aquarium fish and invertebrates, and some musicians such as Michael Jackson and Prince. I also have an interest in the field of Autism Spectrum Disorder, which the subject's son has. I am happy to commit to not ever editing the page of Sanjay Shah and Autism Rocks. If you permit, I would like to be able to suggest edits. Thanks for reading and considering.}

Eagleeye321, with regards to your statement above, please note that living in any particular area or speaking a specific language does not inhibit neutrality -- otherwise no one living in the United States could edit topics that occur in the United States. And although it is beside the point: I had no previous knowledge of this topic until a 2019 AFD that you created appeared on my "Denmark articles for deletion" sorting watchlist. (Sorted watchlists like these are a standard fixture on Wikipedia that allow editors with knowledge or a particular expertise to assist others to translate or to understand sources during AFDs.) The article history shows that the only edits I made were to fix one reference's markup and revert a copyright violation by you. That's it. It is also noted that the article does not rely on "opinion" but rather a variety of reliable sources from Denmark, England, New York, Germany, United Arab Emirates, etc. All of which were pointed out to you during the AFD discussion. Despite these facts, you chose to spend your appeal casting aspersions without evidence against myself and other WP editors. Please read the blue link about personal attacks. I'm now unsure of whether or not you have a clear enough understanding of Wikipedia policies on neutrality to contribute effectively even with a broad topic ban. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (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).

Eagleeye321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to request to be unblocked for the reasons I submitted above. I disagree with CactusWriter that I am casting aspersions here. I said "Maybe he or she is influenced by the Danish press". Please explain why that is casting aspersions? Eagleeye321 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2020 (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.