User talk:Edtilley4

August 2016

Your addition to Transition Economics has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The article appears to take content directly from http://csq1.org/forums/topic/introducing-transition-economics/. Your username indicates you might be the author. Please make sure you understand Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials before resubmitting your content to Wikipedia. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CSQ Research

Hello Edtilley4,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged CSQ Research for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TimothyJosephWood 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page CSQ. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
- Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edtilley4. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate 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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.Deb (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Richard Wilkinson - Income Disperity.png

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Wilkinson - Income Disperity.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Richard Wilkinson - Income Disperity.png

A tag has been placed on File:Richard Wilkinson - Income Disperity.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSQ Research

No idea what you are talking about; I shouldn't have suggested any action regarding Creative Clinic. I don't edit Wiki because it's an arcane system - which probably explains the wrong report. My massive 124 edits reflect the fact that the system is rubbish and that's an absolutely fair statement. Wikipedia does have pages for think tanks, definitions - including WAOH (an econometric library), CSQ Research, and explanations of authors and contributions. Why you have written what you wrote about a four-year-old quote is beyond me. Surely had it not been deleted I would have spent more time composing a proper explanation of the dozen or more Sustainable Societies Programmes we curate. WHAT INCENTIVE IS THERE WHEN SOMEONE DELETED NEAR ALL OF THE PAGES I EVER COMPOSED? None whatsoever - so I started with something simple. I've written 40-articles and six 600-page theses in the last few years, I'm quite certain I can put something helpful together. --Edtilley4 (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Clinic deletion

I don't know why you are complaining about the deletion of Creative Clinic, which you didn't create. The only thing you created that I deleted was a page called CSQ Research, which consisted of a grand total of four lines - what makes you think an article like that "solves the problem of unsustainable societies"? And what makes you think that Wikipedia is a suitable place for such a big task? You ask "How to get the website you deleted four years ago back up and listed?" Well, we don't list websites, we publish articles that comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. So if you want to ensure that an article on a particular topic is included, all you need to do is follow those guidelines. After four years and a massive 124 edits, I would have thought you would have figured out how to sign your posts by now. Deb (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at William Petty. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 8 October 2020 (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).

Edtilley4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account blocking was incorrect as I am not a suggester of spam, as can easily be seen in 160? contribution entries over my time since registration here many years ago. I add content intermittently and I administer a Fact Tank for which I requested a wiki page about four years ago. That request was speedy-deleted and I didn't pursue an appeal for four-years. Two weeks ago, I requested Issue Resolution at the direction of an administrator, and then the Issue Resolution administrator then turned me around to the Speedy Delete Resolution process - which I haven't had the chance to apply to yet. I was discussing "God is Good" on the God page yesterday when three websites appeared Blacklisted (I don't think I mentioned three of these websites on the wiki website ever so I cannot tell you how the administrator found them). I was appealing the Spam Blacklisting of these websites, which are very obviously legitimate websites; one is the largest Econometric Library on the Web as well, and the website would be legitimate to use on Wikipedia pending a successful Speedy Delete Resolution once I submitted it. The administrator's reasons for considering this content Spam were never made clear to me and I was never instructed to make changes; one or two other administrators seemed to agree intermittently but these were the admins that sent me to the wrong Issue Resolution page? At times administrator responses appeared emotional and inappropriate, and so I had to assume I did something wrong, didn't realize it, and that I could work through documented appeals processes to set things straight. I was clearly wrong because three websites were quickly blocked and blacklisted while I was entering appeals today. i) If there was a requirement to make no reference to a url which was speedy deleted pending issue resolution - in a talk page, then I was unaware of the requirement and I would abide by those rules in the future. ii) Transition Economics (TE) - is located on the CSQ Research website simply for convenience and because it is also a contribution to a Sustainable Societies Programme here - and this landing page's unique url was seen as a backdoor attempt of some sort - where it certainly is no such thing. I'm the author of two engineering plans for World Peace - FYI - TE is a thesis dissertation landing page that discusses science and sells nothing. As a fact, there has never been a single revenue recorded in the three years that this landing page was created - as its not a product; it's a Science. The page is informational - there is no Spam here by any definition that I've ever heard of. One admin made mention of books on the website, these contain the full citations of all sources used in the creation of the thesis if someone is ever interested - and again - there has never been a single sale of cited reference material theses through this website. iii) Wikipedia Rules - are misused or misunderstood by its administrators from time to time, sometimes an admin misunderstands the purpose of a website citation (transitioneconomics.info doesn't "sell books" as one admin assumed incorrectly in a correspondence, and rules are inconsistently explained or understood because of this too. I noticed the term "Flagrant" used at one point, despite the reality that no attempt at Spam was ever made here (I define Spam as an attempt to sell something - Spam is NOT an attempt to share research). No corrective action was ever suggested; and I thought it best to abide by formal escalation and appeals processes, rather than deal with seemingly offended people. I don't doubt that I was at fault for not knowingly abiding by a rule "Flagrantly", but no greater-good is accomplished by denying me appeals - which was what I was doing when I was blocked. Added: On further consideration, I think your admins interpreted my referencing of my research (which is extensive - documented in six 600-page theses, 40-articles, and this website) - as an attempt to sell something. It is not, and I think that if you inspect any references to my URL use, it has only been to citation a multi-point topic that is much more fully explained with charts, visualizations, etc. on the informational website. How else would I respond to talk questions, if not with knowledge that I have researched - as we all do. Years ago I added books to a list of economics books, believing that was appropriate, but I think those links were deleted as well - I didn't pay much attention at the time.

Edtilley4 (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; this request is too long; please make another shorter one. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 13 October 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.