User talk:EricoLivingstone

Welcome!

Hello, EricoLivingstone, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm Viewmont Viking. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 14:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

promotional? can you elaborate? I modify whatever Wikipedia gives me randomly ... how in the world can that be "promotional"? EricoLivingstone (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "I modify whatever Wikipedia gives me randomly" mean? In this and this and this edit you added material that was highly promotional of the subject, uncited, and unencyclopedic. In this edit you added two sources which are obviously not reliable sources. Are you using "AI" to generate text, or copying it from other websites? JBL (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note regarding ANI closure

I would like to note for the record (regarding the closed ANI thread on the "Markov chain" article) that:

I did notify the user involved, [[User:Malparti]], using the correct {{subst:AN-notice}} template.
My note about possible COI was based on observed editing patterns and repeated removal of a valid, peer-reviewed source (Wiley, 2017), not intended as a personal attack.
I’ll continue the discussion on the article’s Talk page as suggested and will seek consensus there.

Thanks to those who reviewed the case. EricoLivingstone (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! EricoLivingstone, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption, or harassment.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I respectfully request a review of the indefinite block placed on my account by User:TomStar81 for "disruptive editing." I acknowledge the concern, but I believe this block resulted from a misunderstanding. My contributions focused on including a peer-reviewed academic source — a 2017 textbook on Markov chains published by Wiley — in the relevant article. The source is cited over 1,000 times and meets all criteria under WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. My intent was not promotional; I relied on Wikipedia’s content policies (WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV) and sought resolution through appropriate channels (Talk page, RSN, DRN). I regret if my actions were seen as insistent or disruptive. In hindsight, I should have allowed more time between noticeboard discussions. However, I acted in good faith to preserve a valid academic citation that was repeatedly removed with arguments based primarily on opinion rather than policy. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to continue contributing constructively and in line with Wikipedia’s editorial standards. I’m open to any restrictions deemed appropriate if reinstated. Thank you for your time and consideration. EricoLivingstone (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Yes, but" is not a convincing unblock request. Consider Liz's advise below carefully, then consider making another unblock request that reflects her advice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 31 March 2025 (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.

Hello, EricoLivingstone,

Your insistence that this one source be included in a Wikipedia article was so strong that you started up multiple discussions on the project which is called forum-shopping and, frankly, it looks very suspicious. You seem to be under some kind of time-pressure to get this source included which also raises questions about a possible conflict-of-interest.

My recommendation is that there is a possibility of getting this block lifted or reduced if you give up this single-minded pursuit regarding the inclusion of this old textbook and promise to move on from this request. This declaration would indicate that you are interested in the project, as a whole, and other articles rather than just about promoing this book. We have editors and IP accounts regularly try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their companies or projects and it's something that is quickly nipped-in-the-bud and removed. Even if you had not been blocked and had gone ahead with your vow of including this book after 48 hours if your demands on the article talk page weren't met, this information would have been quickly removed. That's not how you build consensus here, it takes time and discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Suppose that one of the noticeboards that you asked about whether the book was a reliable source had said yes, and another of the noticeobards had said no, that it was not a reliable source? Where would you and the community have been then? That is why forum shopping is disapproved of. I suggest that any future unblock request acknowledge that you have realized why forum shopping was not a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello EricoLivingstone! The thread you created at the Teahouse, A content dispute about a peer-reviewed Wiley textbook on Markov chains, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]