You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}.   MER-C 11:38, 25 July 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

@ MER-C: I acknowledge being a newcomer who clearly made a mistake that caused this blockage to be enforced, but I am NOT getting paid to edit Wikipedia and the pages that I create are NOT covert advertising. To gain confidence as a new user I started by writing on topics well known to me, while ensuring any CoI remained under control. To that end, I was very careful as to what information was published and to validate every sentence with reputable references. Evidently my perception of being totally unbiased and detached was wrong, so when the block is lifted I will replace any possibly loaded word still present and rebalance sections to make that NPOV stand out even more. Creiamo ( talk) 17:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

I think a committment to (temporarily) edit in areas unrelated to any conflict of interest would help. If you make another request, someone else will review it. 331dot ( talk) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (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.

Photo copyright

How is File:Marcello Tonelli.jpg your own work? MER-C 17:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ MER-C: The photograph was taken at an offical event and the author granted permissions to use and modify it. The version uploaded on Wikimedia is in fact a modification made by me of the original.

If that's so, can you get him to send you an email releasing the image under the stated terms and in turn forward it to UTRS at Commons? Daniel Case ( talk) 18:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Daniel Case: Uff... a long shot as that picture was taken in 2019, but I will move in that direction immediately. Whatever the outcome, next time I will make sure to seek a picture that has that written author's consent attached to it. Thank you! ( Creiamo ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)) reply
@ Daniel Case: Just a quick update on the photo situation. I have been told that the American University of Central Asia, sole owner of the picture, followed the instructions at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates and officially released the copyright. Creiamo ( talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

OK, then, at some point soon the file page on Commons should be updated to reflect that. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Daniel Case: It is already. Creiamo ( talk) 16:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Alright then, I guess this aspect of the unblock conditions is satisfied. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Daniel Case: I'd think so. Now it is a matter of understanding what more I can do to fix my status and get back on track... Creiamo ( talk) 19:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Conflict of interest

Related to MER-C's question, what is the nature of your conflict of interest you allude to? 331dot ( talk) 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ 331dot:I have a close relationship with the person (but would prefer to remain anonymous, if possible). Being his achievements noteworthy and publicly available, I didn't think that was going to be a problem as long as I was able to simply state facts and maintain a NPOV. ( Creiamo ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)) reply

Topics? Topic, singular - List of world records in life saving, which just so happens to be related to Marcello Tonelli, as is all but one of your mainspace edits (if I've tallied them correctly). This appeal doesn't make sense. MER-C 19:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ MER-C: yes 2 topics: List of world records in life saving and Marcello Tonelli. Sorry but I still don't see the problem of them being related. Actually I thought that interrelation between pages was a positive thing; in fact something to look for as editors. I believed both topics had good enough reasons to exist and haven't read anything against that argument. As previously stated I am not getting paid for editing, so please be specific as to what other issue is there for me to clarify. Thus far I understood that I cannot write on topics too close to me (even when they have a strong basis) and that a verbal consent from an author is not enough to use/modify a picture. ( Creiamo ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)) reply

You don't have to be specifically paid for editing to be a paid editor, are you paid by the subject in any capacity, even if you don't wish to reveal how? 331dot ( talk) 10:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ 331dot: I have done some research work for Tonelli in the past, but that was years ago and I have changed my profession since then. I am not being paid and had no financial interest in creating that page. Creiamo ( talk) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Future Plan

With the List page I created my first domain of interest and would like to continue editing the biographies of other lifesavers who have set world records in their sport and medalled at international competitions. In your decision on whether I should be unblocked, please consider that: I am a new user (as well as individual), was not given any warning, the type of offense/mistake made, and the efforts shown in resolving it. Best, Creiamo ( talk) 01:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Evidently I had not made it clear enough in my first request, so following the reviewer's advice I commit to "edit only in areas unrelated to any conflict of interest". Creiamo ( talk) 12:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Accept reason:

Sounds good to me. --jpgordon ^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Jpgordon, MER-C, and 331dot:: editor was unblocked after stating 'I commit to "edit only in areas unrelated to any conflict of interest"'. First edits after unblock were to Draft:Marcello Tonelli and its talk page, and then to List of world records in life saving. These seem in direct contradiction to the unblock request. Editor then went on to create articles for non-notable life saving swimmers. Fram ( talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Fram: Clearly, when blocked I couldn't rectify my mistakes on Draft:Marcello Tonelli. So all I did now in my edits was to remove possibly "loaded words", and added a couple of important references to text that was already written. If an independent 3 pages book review published in a reputable scientific journal is not notable than I clearly don't understand what the project is about.
Secondly, lifesaving is my interest (but no conflict there) and the page List of world records in life saving was never an issue for discussion. What I did was update the information with the results from 2021. Again sorry but I don't see the problem!
Finally, I have started to create stubs to populate the page as suggested by Wikipedia:Make_stubs: "So, you just wrote a killer new article, and you see lots of red links. You're surprised, because these topics would probably satisfy the notability guidelines and Wikipedia seems to have articles on every single topic imaginable. Instead of letting that red link sit there doing nothing: Make it a stub! Replacing red links with stubs helps to grow the encyclopedia..." Sorry again, but are you suggesting that a world record is non-notable? A WR means that a person has accomplished something that nobody else in the history of the sport has ever done! Is this your personal view or is Wikipedia really here to further push the popularity of countless mediocre soccer players (for example) instead of recognizing and informing about the worthiness of athletes who compete in sports that receive much less media attention? Creiamo ( talk) 21:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Crelamo: Strictly speaking, the {{ help me}} template should be used on your own user talk page.

If you wish to submit your draft for AfC review, simply add the template {{subst:submit}} to the source text.

Since editors with conflicts of interest are allowed to create and submit drafts, submitting this draft might not be considered a violation of the terms of your unblock. Placing a disclosure on your user page would likely help keep this from becoming an issue. I see that Fram has already raised the question on your talk page, so proceed with caution. — jmcgnh ^{(talk)  (contribs)} 22:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Jmcgnh: Thank you for the instructions and sorry for not posting in the right place! My relationship with Dr. Tonelli was fully disclosed before the block being removed and remains available on my user page under 'Conflict of interest'. I will now proceed to add the AfC review template and replace with it the false and outdated "undisclosed payments warning". Creiamo ( talk) 23:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Crelamo: Instead of a bunch of seemingly disconnected 'See also' entries, I recommend that you use the reviews of Tonelli's book(s) to expand that aspect of his career and organically bring up those topics with appropriate links. As {{ edit request}}s, of course. — jmcgnh ^{(talk)  (contribs)} 06:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply