User talk:TagKnife

This account has been pseudo deleted. The password has be set to a random string of text and email blanked.

	The Original Barnstar
	An appreciation of your efforts on CityFibre :) HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on SurrealDB requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurrealDB. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikishovel (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:( TagKnife (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 08:44, 13 November 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand WP:COI rules and have reported such WP:COIN myself, I beleive am not in violation of such rules. I have not been compensated for any edits on wikipedia and trhe only affiliation i have with most articles i edit is that of a customer and some whom has a deep understanding and knoweledge of the subject. I intend to keep editting articles I have editted in such a mannor i have editted them unless it is made aware to me of what this supposide COI is about. TagKnife (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 5 January 2025 (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.

Policy limits what I am allowed to say here on wiki. This isn't about merely COI, but undisclosed paid editing(which is not limited to specific compensation for edits). 331dot (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, I'm assuming what you refer to is information gleaned from WP:COIVRT? The policy for this sort of block reads, in part: "Blocks with rationales that depend on information from this queue must be done with a link to the ticket number in the log entry." Although even if it had that I can't see how an admin without that access is able to realistically review this. I'm honestly at a loss here, should such blocks be marked as only subject to review by users who have queue access? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a link in the log. I can say something similar to what was said at AN: "I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)"

As for who can review, maybe only the queue holders/checkusers can? 331dot (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't check the log, just the block notice. I'm dumb, didn't carefully read what I reposted. I'm wondering I guess if there shouldn't be a template similar to {{oversight block}} that makes it immediately clear to admins without queue access to just move along to something else, but that's a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports, not here. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We've all missed those sorts of things. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]