User talk:Katrina masbin

Hello, Katrina masbin, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorials
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --VViking_TalkEdits 18:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yesterday (video game). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Common-law marriage. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Xeverything11 (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did with this edit to Krembil Research Institute. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Xeverything11 (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katrina masbin! Your additions to Equuleus have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at ViewMinder. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Correlation attack. Similar edits were made across many other pages, all of which I have now reverted. This wouldn't be an issue if it happened once, but it's a pattern of behaviour. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating unclear edit requests as all they do is waste our editors' time. Lightoil (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Masbin, it looks like you're getting a lot of warnings from other editors, and I expect you'll get blocked very soon if you don't change your behaviour. Do you understand why your editing seems to be problematic? Since you have reached out to me for help as your mentor, I'd like to support you in making useful edits, but you need to listen to all these other editors and try to learn what they are telling you. You should probably slow down, make fewer edits, and be sure that your edits are high quality. Do not copy material directly from your sources.

Why are you here? What are you trying to achieve? Larataguera (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I just joined the group of editors and I don't have enough information about semi-protected pages and I want to add new information and new paragraphs in addition to editing a part of a paragraph. Katrina masbin (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like you are now autoconfirmed and so semi-protection shouldn't be a problem for you now. But it appears you also need to study information about reliable sources. And your editing pattern is causing concerns from other editors, so you should make sure you understand why this is happening, or you will have further problems. Good luck! Larataguera (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As Larataguera mentioned, you have received a lot of warnings already. You don't seem to be engaging at all with what people are telling you is wrong, nor do you seem very interested in actually learning about relevant policies. You have been offered help and declined it, and your edits and especially edit requests have been consistently unconstructive. The threshold for being blocked is quite high. Still, it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you continue to disregard or ignore advice and offers for help, just to then further disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing per WP:BLOCK. You can consider this an offer for help, too; I would be happy to answer any questions about editing practices on Wikipedia, or help you in any other way I can. Feel free to reach out to me at my talk page or by mentioning me anywhere. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Actualcpscm, Daniel Case, are you sure the correction of the journal name wasn't a constructive edit? If that was a legitimate correction then this could be a wrongful block. (As Actualcpscm said above, the threshold for being blocked is quite high!) Larataguera (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larataguera Could you point me to the edit in question? :) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean this, one of the last edits before the block.

In any event, it matters little that the user's last edit before being blocked is a constructive one (or constructively intended) when they have been given this many last warnings over this long a time and ignored them all. (Funny that you say this just after Actual and I had a discussion on my talk page as what he perceived initially as an overly lenient block). Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I fixed that now. Thanks for pointing it out, must have slipped through my fingers! Actualcpscm (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have been more specific. I'm seeing this addition of a reliable source and this possible correction. I haven't time to look at this too closely right now, but some edits may be constructive (even if others aren't). If we're going to block this user, the block should be accompanied with clear feedback that encourages constructive editing (such as the examples above, I think). Larataguera (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm trying to say is @Katrina: do more of what you did in those two edits. And @Actual and DC: if you have time, please try to find examples of constructive editing in a user's history so as to encourage better editing when you block them. Larataguera (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larataguera I don't think that's an entirely fair perspective. This user was offered help on so many occasions, and they never even indicated interest. If you look at their earlier edit requests, the pattern is always the same: They make a request, it's denied with explanation, and then they ask "why did you not implement this, how can I force it into the article". AGF is worded very strongly, but it does not require blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In this case, there was no reason to believe that this user had an interest in understanding policy or how to improve their editing. Of course some of their edits were constructive; many of were not reverted. But if half or even a quarter of a user's activity is so disruptive as to require correction or reversion, and they don't appear to be interested in changing that, I don't think it's wrong to assume that they will continue to disrupt. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's not worth arguing too much about it. It just seems like the only chance for a user to become productive is if we give them clear examples of their own productive behaviour. (In this case the two edits I showed, but possibly others). Hopefully those examples will help in this case, and it seems like good practise generally. Larataguera (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for example I wrote the exact time of establishment that we have in the info box on May 29,1991 , but you omit it , or I correct the name of journal that this is the link of it "https://www.ijfs.ir/journal/about" or I wrote the name of the director of stem cell, Dr Baharvand that this the link of it "https://royanstemcell.ir/?page_id=195" Katrina masbin (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I am sure and this is the link of this journal : https://www.ijfs.ir/journal/about Katrina masbin (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

it was completely unfair I didn't advertise or I didn't bad faith , I just write the exact time of establishment or I correct the name of IJFS journal or I write the name of the director of the stem cell department with the correct reference , now tell me why did you block me ? Katrina masbin (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Moot as the block has expired. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2023 (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.

Katrina masbin (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because those last edits were reverted, and because you appeared to have ignored the many warnings you were given not to edit like that. If you'd stopped to talk with one of the people warning you about what you were doing wrong and how you might do it right, this might never have happened.

By your standards, you owe us an explanation of why you ignored those warnings (not how you missed them; with this many you cannot plausibly and credibly argue you did not know you had received them). When you ignore this many warnings, including several that state quite clearly that this was the last one before a block (an action that no one was actually, AFAIK, in a position to take until I fielded the AIV report this morning my time), you have a lot of chutzpah to ask why you were blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel I asked them but all the time they told me just write Chang X to Y , and when I wrote it again no one answered me . Katrina masbin (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here I want to ask a question, why did you omit this sentence : Royan Institute publishes the quarterly Cell Journal with an impact factor of 3.128 (2022)

It has got a source ( www.academic-accelerator.com/Impact-of-Journal/Cell-Journal ) Katrina masbin (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not here concern myself with the substance of your edits as with how you edited. But looking over your edit history I don't see much evidence that you reached out to other editors besides Larataguera. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry I spoke on the talk page of the Royan Institute page with editors Katrina masbin (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has expired now, but ... making semi-protected edit requests in wall o'text form is not very effective communication. And, as the saying goes (and one you might well take heed of at this moment), insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina, is Katrina safei also you? Also, regarding your defense of your edits as intended to purely informational, please read this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Daniel .

I don't know who is Safei. But I don't know why my new information omitted after 2 days that it doesn't have any aspects just because of some one else that has got the same name as me !!!! Katrina masbin (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told many times now, the content you added was removed for being promotional and not sufficiently well-sourced. I really don't know what else to tell you here, you've been pointed to the relevant policies and guidelines repeatedly. If you'd like a more interactive introduction to editing on Wikipedia, check out WP:TWA. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please guide me to return my information. I'm so sad about it Katrina masbin (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spend a lot of time and collect information to update a page, then easily just because of another person, why do they delete my information? Katrina masbin (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have deleted Royan Institute. Do not try to recreate it unless you have read Notability and have sources that discuss the subject purely and significantly. Let me know if you need my assistance in understanding notability. Thanks, Lourdes 06:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I read it please help me.Katrina masbin (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise to give the exact resources please help me .Katrina masbin (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would suggest creating a draft in your sandbox. I'd be happy to take a look and give you concrete feedback. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi.

  I send my issues with sources in my sand box.

  You make me happy if you check it. Katrina masbin (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Most of these sources do not satisfy the requirements of WP:INDEPENDENT.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Royan Institute and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pbritti (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katrina masbin! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Pbritti (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Draft:Royan Institute. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katrina masbin. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Royan Institute, 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 search-engine optimization.

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:Katrina masbin. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Katrina masbin|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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear DoubleGrazing

I promise that I don't have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting this topic. I'm just an iranian person that I know about this institute a lot and I just wanted to update the information of these institute. Not because of the advertising. I swear that I just wanted to update the information and not any more .

And I don't know where was my problem that some one deleted this page completely.

Thank Katrina masbin (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katrina masbin! Your additions to Draft:Royan Institute have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa

Thanks because of your guidance. I change it can you check it and tell me your opinion?

Thank Katrina masbin (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Johannes Maximilian were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Royan Institute and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Royan journals per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Royan journals. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]