User talk:Pablo.morales.la.bomba

1002:. Unfortunately, the link has expired. It will become quite obvious upon seeing their "contribution history" that are meat puppets. Both accounts have repeatedly disrupted the NYU-Poly article in the past. In fact, I created this account to counter vandalism against the NYU-Poly article. Although I haven't broken any law, I still agree to your proposal. And I would request you to please watch the NYU-Poly and related articles in the meantime. I don't think that 1042: 653: 472: 233: 70: 1461: 1498: 358:

stay blocked, irrespective of the sockpuppetry issue. On the sockpuppetry issue, it seems clear that this account is working for the same institution as other accounts which have been blocked, for the purpose of continuing the same sort of editing that the blocked accounts have been prevented from doing. That means that this account is either a

599:

At your sockpuppet accounts, I see that you said that those accounts weren't sockpuppets. In other words, you lied. That means that you are a person who will lie to get unblocked, which means that everything you say must be supported by a lot more evidence than usual. And this request doesn't even

348:

You have not given any reason for being unblocked. ("DGG would unblock me" is not a reason.) Even if it were true that DGG thought you shouldn't be blocked, the idea that you can choose what administrator will assess your request, with a view to getting one who you think will be sympathetic to review

957:

commit to avoiding said behavior in the future, you stand a much better chance of being unblocked. This is not an entitlement to an unblock after six months; you will still need to demonstrate that you will be a constructive and useful editor should you be unblocked. More information is available at

956:

Pablo, for your benefit, the "standard offer" is thus: You do not edit Knowledge under any account or IP address for at least six months. After six months of no editing, if you can demonstrate that you have a better understanding of Knowledge's policies and why your past conduct was problematic, and

357:

is to promote an institution, or, as you put it, to "make Poly proud". You have also made rather strange assertions which encourage me to wonder whether you are being paid to do that promotion, but whether that is so or not, accounts which exist substantially for promotional purposes are blocked and

883:

Hmmm. The whole discussion above - especially FisherQueen's decline - and the presence of sockpuppets indicate to me that this is more than an issue of COI spamming. I do not believe that this user truly understands Knowledge's purpose or many of the policies he's violated; it appears as though

455:

I am not a spammer. I was jus trying to improve the article. I was working collaboratively with other users. I got blocked because there was a pending SPI, not because of my behaviour. If something was wrong with my behavior then many other editors should get blocked along with

561:, I learned what not to do in order to not get blocked. See my contributions. I have been a very productive and cooperative editor. I sought help of other editors and administrators to help fix the NYU-Poly article. I have not been disruptive in any way. I still need to thank 366:, in either case created in order to evade blocks. There are more than enough reasons for maintaining the block. Knowledge is not a free advertising service. I will amend the block log to register spamming as another reason for the block, in addition to the sockpuppetry. 1257:

The link to the Wayback Machine works fine, and it links to an article in the Cal Poly Pomona school newspaper that as a student Marco started the CPP WikiProject. And per the terms of the standard offer, "back very soon" will not be at least for six months.

604:, that you have any plan to improve Knowledge beyond promoting your own organization, or that there is any reason to think you won't be using sockpuppet accounts in the future. I'm not seeing that the potential benefit is worth the likely disruption. 410:

We should confine the blocks to those for whom there is stronger evidence, such as adding inappropriate material. Among those I would certainly include Pablo.morales.la.bomba, who has been adding highly promotional excessively detailed material to the

862:

You may want to clarify that such a ban on articles includes NYU-Poly, NYU and related institutions, subjects (such as the lists that were split off) and people (faculty and alumni) connected with those institutions, talk pages, AfDs, etc.

1026:, even if that requires commiting vandalism. Multiple accounts are allowed in Knowledge. Sockpuppetry case is for protecting Knowledge from vandalism. Unfortunately, sockpuppetry case is being used for the opposite purpose here.-- 827:

I would support unblocking only if you intended to work on other subjects, and refrained from editing NYU-Poly and subjects and people connected with it. It does not help the encyclopedia to copy over their press releases.

565:. I am not a vandal, I love editing and I vehemently oppose vandalism. Editing Knowledge has become my favorite pastime. I am requesting unblock only because I haven't done any wrong. See my contributions. I just saw that 1316:

was, wrongly, about. I stand by my direct quotes published on the article (those not taken out of context), but cannot do so for everything Ms. Olivas wrote and interpreted. To summarize on the phony accusations you have

349:

your case, is a rather strange one, and certainly not the way Knowledge works. However, where you got that idea about DGG I cannot imagine: as Hersfold has pointed out below, DGG was the administrator who said that you

1369:

which you have accepted means no editing at all, including on this page, for six months, after which you can post an unblock request. If you are unable to comply with this I will deny you access to this page.

19:

Hi, I am a Mexican Wikipedian. I contribute to both English and Spanish-language editions of Knowledge. I received both a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the

1312:

Yes. It was also written over four years ago, it's not a direct quote, and doesn't state that I'm paid employee of the university. It's what the author of the article (Stacey Olivas) thought the

918: 1144:; this means you do not edit at all for six months, when you can post another unblock request which we will consider. Making unjustified accusations of sockpuppetry does not help you; 884:

they're just saying what they need to say in order to be unblocked. If that's the case, it seems likely we'll end up back here in a few months, if not weeks. I'd like to see the

1082: 693: 512: 273: 110: 1480: 417:" Unless you provide evidence to refute that shown in the SPI and commit to avoiding the problematic behavior DGG noted, I think your chances of being unblocked are slim. 1437: 1433: 1339: 1202: 1023: 997: 757:

and his views enormously, but feel an unblock now is not appropriate. As suggested below, I feel that acceptance of the standard offer is a minimum requirement. --

1194: 1185:

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.

1077: 790:

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.

688: 644:

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.

507: 400:

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.

268: 224:

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.

105: 24: 20: 1483:). Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the 412: 1278:"Guzman created the Cal Poly Wiki Project to help promote and distinguish Cal Poly Pomona from other Universities also featured on Knowledge.org." 1298:

This thread has nothing to do with your own behavior on Knowledge, which is the reason you have been repeatedly blocked and denied unblocks.

1096: 707: 570: 526: 287: 124: 1484: 1170: 775: 629: 385: 209: 614: 46:

You placed a message on my talk page, requesting images of the old Poly logo. I have a few images, and have uploaded two of them.

1443: 926: 1000: 1281: 1240: 1226: 1060: 1027: 845: 671: 578: 490: 457: 442: 327: 251: 160: 88: 28: 322:

said I was not going to be blocked, but since the SPI was open, a new user blocked me. If someone can kindly notify

63: 1394: 1376: 1351: 1211: 1158: 1054: