User talk:StashStrack
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, StashStrack, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Heka (brand), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.
Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.
New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
- Article development
- Standard layout
- Lead section
- The perfect article
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
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 have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CycloneYoris talk! 22:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Heka (brand)
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Heka (brand) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.brutimes.com/news/lifestyle/can-an-ai-mattress-help-you-sleep-better-exploring-hekas-innovative-technology. 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. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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 deleted 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. CycloneYoris talk! 22:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, Thanks for the notice, didn't know about the Brutimes link, I will modify the page in neutral tone shortly. StashStrack (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
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.
StashStrack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In addition to the unjustified block, I am deeply concerned by what appears to be a pattern of targeted reversions and deletions of my work, much of which was factually accurate, well-sourced, and aligned with Wikipedia guidelines. This includes:
- The deletion of the article John A. “Jack” Leide, which met notability standards and was fully compliant with sourcing and content guidelines.
- The deletion of Samir M. Suleymanov, similarly compliant and notable.
- The deletion of HEKA, which was removed despite the deletion log itself stating the subject is notable. I didn't do any sockpuppetry, I just saw an opportunity to create the page which was deleted due to content being promotional I corrected it and published the page. Does that mean I am impersonating another account???
- The mass reversion of nearly all of my edits—many of which had no policy violation whatsoever—by user Justlettersandnumbers, following the block.
- I must seriously question whether this level of administrative and editorial aggression is appropriate or proportionate—especially given that none of my edits were disruptive,
- If Wikipedia is to uphold its reputation as an open, policy-based encyclopedia, it must treat good-faith contributors with due process and apply editorial standards consistently, transparently, and free from bias.StashStrack (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Block is 100% justifiable, even without knowing the checkuser evidence. If you actually are a different person, see WP:MEAT; yes, you will be blocked if you perform an action that others have been blocked for, especially as a new account. I don't think you are, though. If you want your good edits to stand, you need to get your original account unblocked first. Wikipedia- while trying to be fair- is not a government that needs to provide you with "due process"- just as you personally do not need to provide due process to guests within the four walls of your residence. You can be blocked for any reason or even no reason. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, which is an impossibility, as all sources of information have biases. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
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.
StashStrack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting an unblock of my account, StrashStack, as I believe the sockpuppetry allegation is unfounded. I categorically deny any connection to the account(s) in question. I have always edited in good faith and as a single user. I have reviewed the Editor Interaction Utility, Interaction Timeline, and SPI tools, and I see no overlapping patterns or behavioral indicators that would support the claim of sockpuppetry. To my knowledge, there is no behavioral, technical, or editing-based evidence linking me to any other account. I respectfully request a review of this block and a reconsideration based on a lack of clear evidence. I am willing to fully cooperate with any further inquiries. Thank you. StashStrack (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
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.