Hello, 2Joules, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Hi 2Joules! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
On 25 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mudéjar theme park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a scale model of the Castle of La Mota in the Mudéjar theme park is built with 2,500,000 miniature bricks—approximately the same number as the original? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mudéjar theme park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mudéjar theme park), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 7 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Graoully, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to legend, the dragon Graoully, which terrorized the citizens of Metz, was vanquished by Saint Clement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Graoully. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Graoully), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on HashCash Consultants, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sayan999, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Hello 2Joules. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:2Joules. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=2Joules|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog just which one of my edits gave you that impression. I have created only 4 articles, one is about an ancient dragon, one is about a castle, one is about a theme park and one is about an international company. If any one of these entities is paying me, I'll be mighty rich. So please make it clear which one of my edits made this impression on you. 2Joules (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have an obligation to disclose it, if you have you been paid, or if you expect to be paid - for any of your editing. This is not a game. Please respond simply and clearly. There is a place for paid editors in Wikipedia but only when they follow policies and guidelines. This is one of them. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog my response is clear. None of subjects of my articles can/do pay me. If they did I would be rich. A multinational crypto company and a centuries old dragon!!! 2Joules (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your original response was not clear and did not address the question directly, and in your second response you misrepresented your editing. You added spam links to the dragon article; the crypto-consulting company and the theme park are both prime paid editing subjects and your editing on both has been low-quality and commercial; your editing about the castle added spam about a school that exists today, and the castle is a tourism site. Every single topic you have edited is prone to paid editing and your editing is typical of a paid editor.
It could just be that you don't know what you are doing when you edit WP, but baaed on the your misleading response I find your answer to be not credible. Please reconsider your answer. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog spam links? which links are spam? You removed the link about the composer Alain Celo. The link was to his website that shows he did indeed create a piece based on the dragon legend. Calling it spam is either the result of heavy handed editing or just a hangover. He is a musician, we are saying that he composed a piece. It makes sense that we include his website. On the castle article you made an even more hungover edit. First you removed the reference to the school website. Who does that? Its a school that exists on the castle grounds, it is the best source of information about the castle. It is an official government institute of forestry, not some private two bit school. And then in your hungover state you went on to remove the information sourced to the said ref saying that it was "unreferenced". Perhaps you should take a rest before making such edits. I am new here, and I agree with you that I may not have a grasp of everything, but if even I can see that you are making ridiculous edits, then there is something seriously wrong with your editing. 2Joules (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2Joules, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Graoully have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Content like The fearsome dragon lived in his lair with a pit of snakes whose poisonous breath prevented people from entering or leaving the town. is absolutely unacceptable in Wikipedia.
The content you have sourced to this source, does not support that content.
The content about "vanquishing the Graoully" is a close paraphrase of this source, which is a different unacceptable blog.
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Your recent editing history at Graoully shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 04:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello 2Joules, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Don Stits, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: designing a notable aircraft is a sufficient claim of significance (see also WP:ATD). If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 2Joules, in regards to the the comments and nomination that you have raised around Curious Brewery for deletion I would like to advise that the page has had additional information added to it around that available through companies house and related news quotes to ensure the article is shown much more substantially and does not represent any bias in writing to ensure the article if free from any use of advertising. Please get in touch should you have any points you wish to raise that could help to improve the page and ensure it does not result in deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rc curiousbrewery (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2Joules. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Sandor Bodzas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: membership in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences seems to indicate notability. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs)06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2Joules. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shea Stadium (music venue), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: coverage in reliable sources exists (check also Google News). Thank you. SoWhy12:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in depth news coverage is not required for A7. The criterion is just a first check whether the subject might be suitable of inclusion, not a final check. I do suggest that you read the essays I linked to at User:SoWhy/SDA for more information. In this case there was coverage by Spin already linked to in the article and I added another one. That's more than enough to pass the low bar "lower than notability" that A7 stipulates. Whether the venue is notable is not for speedy deletion to decide. You are welcome to take it to WP:AFD to argue for deletion on notability-based grounds. But you should avoid using notability standards when tagging articles for speedy deletion. WP:CCSI contains an attempt to summarize claims that have in the past been seen as sufficient to make an article clear A7 if you need a reference. Regards SoWhy17:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SoWhy Thank you. Yes, I am aware that speedy has a lower bar than AFD. I have read the link you posted, but it gave the impression that the club is now closed, so I thought it would strengthen the argument for deletion instead of weakening it. 2Joules (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that notability is not temporary and thus, neither is significance. If there is a credible claim that the subject was significant or important, the article is not eligible for A7. Whether the subject still exists plays no part in evaluating their significance or importance. Regards SoWhy19:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is the right place to write it to you or not, but wanted to contact you as you nominated my article for deletion. "Niine Movement" was the article that you nominated for deletion. I think you misunderstood it, its not an awareness program its a well known non profit organization which runs campaigns for menstrual hygiene. Menstrual Hygiene is a taboo in India and nobody talks about it, Niine Movement went ahead and spreading awareness about it. As I mentioned in my article that bollywood actor himself promoted the awareness campaign run by Niine Movement. I have cited a lot of articles published in the news portals and I have a lot more evidence that I can show. It is worth being on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberking55 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you are reviewing new articles and you suspect that something is not notable but you aren't certain, you can tag it with {{notability}} rather than with a speedy tag or taking it to AfD. There are several other tags you can use to identify problems with an article that don't warrant deletion. And sometimes a reviewer who has identified a problem is the best person to fix it by adding a few references or removing text that sounds like advertising. Take a look at my edit history and you will see how I try to improve weak articles rather than ask for them to be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs)07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2Joules. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Júlio César Alves, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. SoWhy07:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2Joules. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Angelniemen Ankkuri, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: winning multiple notable competitions indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy07:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please move the articles page "Wp/mni/ꯂꯧꯃꯤ " to Meetei language Wikipedia i.e. Wp/mni/ prefix articles for Meetei language
Hi 2Joules, I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Manu Crooks, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because having multiple singles and appearing at notable festivals is a credible claim of significance. Please feel free to take it to WP:AfD however, a quick look at the references in the article seems to indicate they also meet notability guidelines as well. You might also want to re-read the criteria for speedy deletion carefully before tagging any more pages. If you have any questions or want any clarification, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
hey 2Joules I have Updated some more references and she is well known Actress and model in Punjabi and Bollywood she had significant roles in multiple Music Album And movies, you can search in google If you have any questions or want any clarification, please feel free to ask on my talk page. rajeevtalk 13.10, 3 july 2018 (UTC)
I didn't ever say, being a CEO make him notable. Aravind melligeri has got a significant coverage, recognition at the international level for setting up the India's largest Aerospace hub at Belagavi and many Aerospace companies like Airbus, Boeing and others have outsourced the manufacturing process which makes him notable. Also, the sources that are referenced are reliable and independent. Rishi Muni (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2Joules. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aravind Melligeri, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: co-founding a notable company indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2Joules. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Prince Kanishk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being part of a notable royal family or having a plausible claim to the throne of an existing monarchy indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#ROYAL). Thank you. SoWhy14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A7 does not apply to fictional characters, so your argument is not valid anyway (A7 explicitly says "real person", also cf. WT:CSD#Fictional characters and A7). If he is indeed fictional, redirect it to the work of fiction per WP:ATD-R, don't tag it for deletion. If he was real, redirect or merge it to the article on the brother, again per WP:ATD. In either case deletion would be a violation of policy, in this case WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Regards SoWhy14:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No links added but you still removed with reason "Youtube links removed"
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).
I do not edit any pages in any conflict populated by socks. Period. I have only one account. If you look at my contributions, you will see that I am not even interested in engaging in conflict ridden areas. I create simple articles about history etc. and I do cleanup. That is the sum total of my activity on wikipedia. I aim to continue like this, for the foreseeable future. If the sysops think that my account may be used for disruption they can ban me from participation in any area that they deem fit, I have already said that I do not wish to participate in any contentious areas. I am appealing my block according to reasons 1 and 3 in the guide to appealing blocks. My IP is not connected to anyone who caused disruption and my account has never been used to cause disruption, and never will be. 2Joules (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
There's virtually no doubt in my mind you are Elektricity (talk·contribs). That you have largely, though not completely, avoided editing the same areas is completely irrelevant. Combine that with the technical evidence and I'm afraid I have to decline this request. Yamla (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2018 (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.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Thanks, L3X1◊distænt write◊13:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of 2018 Baku fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello 2Joules, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Graoully have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
