Lmartval
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely edit
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.
OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Lmartval (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request to be un-blocked as I was not aware that adding informaiton about the technology I invented at the University of Florida which got licensed by a company was considered spam or advertising. Its information that can be cited with no issues. Additionally I was not familiar with the talk page and did not see your emails. I assume you are a full time volunteer to Wikipedia but I suggest you ask questions to the experts in the field maybe for clarification of the intention of the edits before deleting them or further more blocking the user. Please re-consider and un-block me and allow me as a food scientist to add pertinent information to my patented invention around Kopi Luwak and the immitation.Lmartval (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC) lmartval
Decline reason:
If your sole purpose for editing Wikipedia is to add information about yourself and your invention (see WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, and WP:SPA), then I see no purpose in unblocking this account. Kinu t/c 17:50, 26 February 2013 (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.
Lmartval (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It was not for the purpose of adding information about myself like if I needed public credit for inventing this technology (which I already have as the patent inventor), but as a scientist with several peer reviewed publications in the major food science journals, my intention was to clarify information already posted that is misleading. Dr. Marcone's name is also mentioned and his information including his name was not declined or removed. Furthermore the negative comments about Kopi Luwak are wrong, the fact that its quality is graded against standard coffees with standard/common cupping techniques is also wrong. I have tried Kopi Luwak, I did two years of research on it and its quality, flavor, aroma is superior than any other coffee in the world, but I did find that traditional cuppers since they are not trained to taste certain aroma compounds in Kopi Luwak they reference them as negative which is wrong, In one of the posts that got deleted, I mentioned the example of comparing dark chocolate with milk chocolate and saying one is better than the other, when it’s all consumer preference. Anyway, I choose to spend my time to add information from a 1st source as an expert in the field which now i am being declined and blocked to do so. I also need to repeat that I did not read the talk warning messages otherwise I would have communicated internally and clarified the information I was posting to meet the wikipedia guidelines instead of continuing to post them, especially since I thought that other common users were deleting my posts and not full time volunteers such as your selves - please reconsider unlocking my profile and allow the rewording of the information I wanted to add so that the comments are neutral and informative and most of all accurate Lmartval (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your contributions were clearly promotional or otherwise detrimental to the article. They are not a benefit to the project; rather, the contrary. Sandstein 22:07, 27 February 2013 (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.
- As a professional with a high level of self respect, I will refrain from making any additional comments specially about my opinion of you such called "administrators" that I now have very little respect for and whom are solely responsible for the lack of trustworthyness in the information in Wikipedia. As mentioned above, shame on me for spending my valuable time on writing on a publicly reviewed database (by random people - with who knows what kind of professional background if any), when all my peer reviewed publications have been published due to that only subject matter experts are reviewing them. Good luck.Lmartval (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest having a look at another policy - WP:OR (Original Research). Peridon (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The information I was adding cited published material in a patent application and also in a University Research Database, my research was funded by USDA, etc. I bet you all have a life outside of wikipedia, but I doubt its in the technical world where information like this falls under. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable form of free information and right now you all are blocking the publishing of true, documented and proven research data, and leaving information that is wrong Lmartval (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, we are preventing individuals and groups from using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their own interests. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no affiliation with any organization that would benefit for what I wrote. In fact the reason I conducted the research with MY OWN IDEA at the University of Florida and gave all the rights to this patent to the University of Florida, was exactly because I had no personal interest than to create a technology the US coffee producing regions could benefit from. The US Department of Agriculture would not have funded my research with half a 1/3 millon dollars if it had been for my own interets. I did add the information about Coffee Primero which I understand NOW that it may be seen as advertising, so I will not add again, right now I am arguing about the fact that you blocked me without understanding the intentions of my posts - I am not a "wiki expert" i dedicate my time to reseach and for the first time in my life I have spent this much time dealing with a internet site.Lmartval (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, we are preventing individuals and groups from using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their own interests. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Lmartval (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not the specific user, but wish to have his block reviewed. The editor made a genuine, good faith contribution in an area of his expertise. It is to be expected that his initial contribution in wikipedia relates to the area of his expertise and does not meet the standards of an experienced contributor. Kinu's argument is absurd - there is no conclusion about a 'sole purpose' that can be drawn from an initial contribution. Sandstein claims the contrution is detrimental, but that is not the case. Subsequent edits have included content from Lmartval's edits in a more balanced way. I request that the user be unblocked and the relevant administrators have cautions for recklessly intimidating/banning new users, rather than assuming good faith and engaging and educating as WP:AGF and WP:NEWBIES require. Kaffiend (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is no provision in wikipedia policy forgranting an unblock in response to a request by a third party. I will not initiate a precedent, although I accept that your request is meant in good faith. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:18, 9 March 2013 (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.