User talk:Belmop

Welcome!

Hello, Belmop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg 06:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PoultryCRC logo.jpg

Hello Belmop, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:PoultryCRC logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Belmop/Sandbox. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Poultry hub

A tag has been placed on Poultry hub requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mattinbgn\^talk 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belmop. Firstly I am not an administrator and therefore cannot delete articles. I merely tagged it as being suitable for deletion. An administrator reviewed this tag, obviously agreed with my reasoning and deleted the article.

If you wish you can take this to Deletion review and state your case there. Otherwise, it may be worth your while to provide independent reliable sources asserting the notability of any article you create. The links above will help with this.

Lastly, you should assume good faith rather than making veiled accusations of "having an agenda" or being a "vegan with a chip on their shoulder". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of your deleted article are available for you at User:Belmop/Poultry hub. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PoultryCRC logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PoultryCRC logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Hy-Line International

Hi ~~CliffC~~ Belmop!

I declined the speedy deletion of Hy-Line International. Decline G10 again. Please do not retag the page when a speedy has already been declined. Regards, decltype (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Belmop, I just want you to know that decltype did mean you, but forgot to change the username (CliffC), as he had written this notification at the wrong user talk page at first. Hey Mid (contributions) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heymid, I have altered my comment accordingly. decltype (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:View of Port of Geelong, Victoria, Australia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:View of Port of Geelong, Victoria, Australia.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Hi Ronhjones - thanks for the feedback. The shot of GeelongPort was taken from a helicopter in retricted airspace by a professional photographer at considerable expense - and then made available to me via our network of employees. So there's no way any member of the public could get the same shot of that specific port's location without transgressing local airspace restrictions - drone or chopper or otherwise - so I will amend the file description accordingly. Thanks! Belmop (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:Aerial view of proposed Ruakura development.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Aerial view of proposed Ruakura development.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I thought the image added value by showing the separate precincts of the proposed development which will have significant impact to the amenity of the Hamilton populace. I was intending to add more exposition and pertinent info about Ruakura soon. Image was provided by TGH - as the commercial arm of the Waikato-Tainui tribe in NZ. Can provide proof if required but only if image is deemed worthy. Was definitely easier uploading images in 2007! Belmop (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:LINX Scania prime mover with bulk tipper trailers.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LINX Scania prime mover with bulk tipper trailers.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:View of Port of Geelong, Victoria, Australia.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:View of Port of Geelong, Victoria, Australia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Belmop. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Belmop. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Belmop|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The creeper2007 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 00:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Wikiprofessionals has been site banned from the English Wikipedia (please see [1]). As there is good reason to believe that you were engaged in undisclosed paid editing for this company, you have been blocked indefinitely. If you wish to appeal this decision, please refer to the guide to appealing blocks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Wikiprofessionals said Belmop and Cyberpower678 are not their accounts, and the list of articles was almost certainly just to show the type of article, not a list of articles they created or expanded. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just bet they did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Though what's Cyberpower678 have to do with it? They're not a spammer.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As there is good reason to believe that you were engaged in undisclosed paid editing for this company..." @Seraphimblade Just wow. Belmop (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make an unblock request without misspelled words ("wotevs" is not a word) and smiley emoticons? And you can say "shit" if you like; you don't have to misspell that either. What do you plan to edit if you are unblocked? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok.

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).

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

Request reason:

I created the page for that company years ago as an employee - completely unaware of the strict rules on paid editing. I only created the page because I saw that other companies had pages and this company didn't as it emerged after a rebrand. I thought I could make a well-intentioned contribution and make sure it in no way violated the NPOV rules - which I believe I did, using only factual information about the businesses involved. Someone else may have added non-NPOV afterwards. I have since left that employer in acrimonious circumstances a few years ago, so I don't care what happens to the page.

I have no plans to edit any specific page/s at this stage.

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. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2020 (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.

Belmop (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belmop, please remove one of your active unblock requests. Only one unblock request should be open at a time. Java Hurricane 04:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Java Done. Belmop (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Java Hurricane - why am I still blocked? Belmop (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]