User talk:Alexanderkessler: Difference between revisions

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

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.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexanderkessler! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2025 (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 MediaKyle was: 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.

MediaKyle (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2025 (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 AlphaBetaGamma was:  The comment the reviewer left was:

Some claims, when not sourced, appear to be original research. To avoid this, you must cite the sources verifying the claim.

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.

AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:12, 30 July 2025 (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 JSFarman was:  The comment the reviewer left was:

References need to be via independent, reliable sources.

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.

JSFarman (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexanderkessler. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Biology of Trauma, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexanderkessler. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Trauma-Informed Medicine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT BEING COMPENSATED IN ANY WAY. I AM A CUSTOMER AND WANTED TO CREATE AN ARTICLE BECAUSE SHE HAS HELPED ME HEAL FROM MY TRAUMA AND LIVE A HAPPIER LIFE. I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO BE AWARE SO THEY CAN DO THE SAME.

PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU INCORRECTLY ASSUME I HAVE SOME OTHER INTEREST Alexanderkessler (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This block is made in my capacity as a COI volunteer response team member, based on off wiki information. Policy and documents I have signed prevent me from disclosing the specific basis of the block, but that basis directly contradicts your claim that you are not a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BASED ON WHAT? YOU HAVE NO RESON BECAUSE AS MENTIONED I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE SUBJECT IN ANY WAY. Alexanderkessler (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not allowed to tell you the reason other than to say it directly contradicts your claim that you are a mere reader and customer, you have a very strong connection to the subject of your editing. There’s no need to yell. You may make an unblock request for a checkuser or other COIVRT person to review; as they are limited in number, you may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee. If I am in error, they may unblock you without asking me. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I dispute whatever ridiculous cause you are citing? I know for a fact that you are wrong, so please tell me who to speak with Alexanderkessler (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said what you can do. You may follow the instructions provided above to make an unblock request for someone else to review, or you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee via email(click the link for instructions). I am quite confident in my reason, but again, if I am in error, another may unblock you without asking me. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivially simple to find an online connection between you and Aimie Apigian. If you are not being compensated, then you definitely have a conflict of interest. Whether paid or COI, either way, you have failed to disclose that.

Your path forward is to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks appeal your block as instructed in your block message above, and come clean, disclosing any association you have with any topic you have written about. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I am not being compensated, nor am I connected to her. I’d love some of this evidence you all keep citing, since I know how important reliable independent sources are to you. ~2026-55236 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If by some extremely odd coincidence what you’re saying is true, I have no access to the COIVRT report, and found an obvious connection within about 15 seconds of searching. It would be trivially easy for you to find the connection between this account and Apigian and address it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have already submitted an email to the administrator. I hope they revoke your status. ~2026-55236 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. Honesty and candor would be a lot more efficient at getting your editing rights back. You already have been given directions on contacting ArbCom, which is your recourse at this point if you don’t wish to take the easier path far more likely to be successful. I wish you the best of luck. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I honestly don’t k ow what more to tell you and the other editors. I have nothing to gain from this article, only wanted to do something nice for someone who has helped me. Since none of you can tell me what the COI is, and I have already explained my relationship (or lack of) to the subject, the arbitration committee is all I can do. I really don’t care at this point, just think it’s ridiculous how you run this like a cartel without any regard for truth. ~2026-55236 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, man, do you seriously think we’re all complete muppets? By the very definition of the fact that we’re working on a web-based platform, we all have internet access, and most of us know how to carry out a simple web search. Need I say more? — DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Seems this is all based on an unused outdated LinkedIn profile? Give your heads a shake. ~2026-55236 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You said on-wiki that you are just a reader and customer of Ms. Apigian’s work, when your relationship(past or current) is much stronger a connection than that. All we want is openness and transparency from you. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to log in when you post. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not Alexander Kessler? Or just impersonating him here on Wikipedia? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]