Hi Francesco espo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bop34 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Francesco espo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((request edit)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.. Please do not write articles about you or groups you are heavily involved in. Do not use Wikipedia for advocacy - that is not allowed either (we're not twitter), and suggests, along with your promotion of the lab leak, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i created that content only as a supporter of the Drastic team, i'm not a component, so i don't think that any COI is involved in this matter. --Francesco espo (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco espo, even if you are a member of DRASTIC, you would still be welcome here on Wikipedia. I have reverted RandomCanadian’s blanking of Drastic Team and I would support inclusion in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, but I will leave that in the capable hands of Jtbobwaysf and Bakkster Man. Pinging ToBeFree, DGG and Barkeep49 to oversee proceedings. Tinybubi (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll do my best! Francesco espo (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page has gone in speedy deletion because I used the same sentences of my website. I infringed the copyright of myself. I removed those sentences and contested the speedy deletion. If you need evidence I'm here! Francesco espo (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Drastic Team 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.laboratoryleak.com/drastic/. 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. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've written in other pages, the content is mine, laboratoryleak.com is my website. In any case i deleted that content. Please remove the violation! Francesco espo (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drastic Team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Team until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome here and gratulation that your new article wasn´t delete. Maybe you should have a look on this discussion and this discussion. We have a simple classification problem, specially because some editors brand all statements, even scientific studies, scientific statements which want investigate the laboratory hypothesis (or find results) supporting a conspiracy theory (= like china KPC !) and filter out many relevant informations. This group represents more or less a dogmatic fring position and applies our rules in a wrong way. Many editors and administrators are therefore frustrated. But we look for a solution. Greeting --Empiricus (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco espo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, Francesco espo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((request edit)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Per [1] you are the author of [ https://www.laboratoryleak.com/ ] and thus have a clear conflict of interest regarding the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Please follow the instruction above to disclose your conflict of interest. You may find Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued editing in the area where you have a COI.[2] I will give you three choices:

1. Declare your COI and start following the rules.
2. Present an argument for you not having a COI.
3. We take a trip to WP:ANI where I will asked that you be topic banned from all Covid-19 related articles.

If you don't make a choice, I will choose for you, and my choice will be asking for a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? My website is totally ad-free, I wrote of an argument who I'm passioned for! What kind of coi is that? If you write a book on apes you can't edit apes on wiki? I think it is the same with a website! I have no affiliation with Drastic but i admire their job. It's enough? If you have questions write and I will answer. Francesco espo (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have chosen to present an argument for you not having a COI. Good choice. Let's discuss it; after all, I could be wrong.

First, whether your advocacy website has ads or not is irrelevant. You appear to be confusing paid editing (See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing) with COI editing. (See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing) For example, if you were, say, an unpaid volunteer for a political candidate or a rock band and ran an ad-free website saying how great that political candidate or rock band is you would have a COI and should not edit that political candidate or rock band's Wikipedia page.

So, how does Wikipedia decide if someone has a COI if they aren't being paid? See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is conflict of interest?, which says:

"While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest (similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if they are married to the defendant.)

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject."

Also see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which says:

"A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose... Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that 'single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.' "

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion says:

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for aAdvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions... Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view."

Finally, there is Wikipedia:Advocacy#Identifying advocacy, which says:

"Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific viewpoint. It may be a hypothesis which they feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community; it may be alternate or revisionist interpretation of a historical event or personage; it may be additions to an article about an organization to portray it in a positive or negative light. The essential problem is that these goals conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia. If an editor appears to be advocating for a particular point of view, this can be brought to their attention with reference to the neutral point of view policy. If the editor volunteers information that confirms they are acting as an advocate, this information can be used to justify appropriate measures."

You are clearly a single purpose account that is engaged in advocacy. You are clearly promoting a hypothesis which you feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community. That means that you have a conflict of interest. You may still contribute in the area where you have a COI, but you should disclose your COI and follow the rules for COI editors. Again, Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations is a good guideline for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, thanks for all these informations. I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do. I'm just a regular guy from Italy with a bike and i have no intention of causing any disruption here, if i post on the origins of covid it's because it's a personal "passion". I want really come to the end of this question, if it will ever be possible, even if it will go in the opposite side of my way of thinking. Any tie that i have with Drastic and researchers of the field exists only for my personal research. When i critic sources, it's because of phenomenons like this^[1]--Francesco espo (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting one's website is indeed a COI issue and may also lead to it being blacklisted. On the other hand, I don't think it has reached that point. It is also not a usable source (an exception would be WP:ABOUTSELF in a BLP article about you). —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:ToBeFree, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You've been warned of the discretionary sanctions, and you've been warned about making this kind of personal attacks. If this continues, if you keep treating Wikipedia as a confrontational debating society where you can try to promote a viewpoint with complete disregard for the site's policies, you can expect to get treated in consequence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]