Jump to content

User talk:CreativArticles5134

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note spam, abusive or personal attacks will be removed. Especially by users who know better.

[edit]

Speedy deletions coupled with spam, abuse or personal attacks are against Talk page guideline|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. New users learning to grasp the system should be treated fairly, not despicably.

Speedy deletion nomination of Danny Avila Electric Blues

[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 Danny Avila Electric Blues requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. WWGB (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Danny Avila Electric Blues

[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 Danny Avila Electric Blues requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Jbcreativ", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to be promotional. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Music1201 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Danny Avila Electric Blues

[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 Danny Avila Electric Blues, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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 removed 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. Music1201 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Danny Avila Electric Blues

[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 Danny Avila Electric Blues requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LjL (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, see this ANI discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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).

CreativArticles5134 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should not be blocked for stating my opinion and argument to contentions presented to me

Decline reason:

You were blocked for advertising or promotion, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You were not blocked for stating your opinion. You have not addressed the reason for your block, therefore the unblock request is denied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:59, 27 March 2016 (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.

You should really try addressing the reasons given in the block notice. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson Yes of course. Certainly I respect you. As I stated, I understand why the article was deleted, but simply because I didn't agree isn't cause for it to get to this point. And as I said, the issue should have remained in my talk page. But I am new this. So this action is certainly aggressive. I and responding to you. So why block me? Because you don't like what I am saying. I hope not. I am only here to build encyclopedic knowledge. And respond to topics accordingly. But remember I am new. And it shows lot on your character to block instead of address. Discussion is respect. Show me where I deserve to be blocked legitimately? Certainly the article is no longer there.

CreativArticles5134 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson Also, we have to think about the spread of knowledge. There are far better avenues to “promote things.” I think about the people searching for information. That's what Wikipedia is for isn't?

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).

CreativArticles5134 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No proof of advertising and promotion, user opinions respected

Decline reason:

Your edits are a proof. Stop wasting our time. Max Semenik (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2016 (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.

@Ian.thomson Advertising and promotion are very specific things. None of that was done here. Nobody was told to buy anything. And no product was promoted. Correct?

Also, "originally promotional username, all edits have been to push a band, referred to themselves as "we"" this is taken out of context. I already explained the "we" referred to me and the person with the contention directly.

CreativArticles5134 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits have been to promote a band. You have behaved exactly like an hired article writer or band affiliate. That's the promotion that multiple editors have brought up. See WP:NOTPROMO and WP:ADVOCACY for more information. Wikipedia doesn't limit promotion to just "buy this product," but even just attempting to increase awareness of a product, brand, service, or even an intangible cause (which is the real definition of advertising, not just "asking people to buy things"). As for earlier remarks:
(edit conflict)Your only attempts to "spread knowledge" so far was to spam an article on a non-notable band, even arguing at one point (on a now-deleted talk page) that "reliably verifiable sources are not required" (against WP:V, which pretty much says "nothing added unless verified by reliable sources). It's only after you found out that we block promotional editors that you seemed to change your tune. Are you being absolutely sincere that you have no intentions of ever attempting to create an article about the Danny Avila Electric Blues?
And treating new editors gently is a two-way street. You need to be willing to pay attention to what experienced editors recommend. Beyond agreeing to the name change, I'm not really seeing that. Do you promise that that's what you'll do from now on? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson Yes, I do. And I understand it's a two way street. It is why I am listening. I did not agree with the deletion from the beginning, and stood fast. And I will certainly listen to admins requests. I am here to spread knowledge. Not advertising or promotion. And it's been my position since the beginning.
@Ian.thomson I have to say this and don't want to, but there was nothing about a band except the citations. The article was regarding a single individual.
@Ian.thomson Please unblock. Thank you.
@Max Semenik OK, what edits? And I did not waste your time. If somebody asked you to review this, than please don't displace your anger on me. Please explain to me if the article is already removed. And the person who started this complaint already admitted what I did was except able, why I cannot object to this treatment? Do you honestly believe because you work for the Foundation people will submit to rudeness? Because they will not.
At this point, you're just headed towards being blocked from using your own talk page, I'm afraid. Why are you still accusing others? Why do you aggressively make assumptions? Who told you Max Semenik works for the Foundation? What does it matter if the article was removed, since it was certainly not removed thanks to you (you repeatedly tried to stop it)? How can you think this attitude will take you anywhere good? Maybe I shouldn't care anymore, but you're not helping yourself at all. LjL (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LjL I'm not here for myself, advertising or promotion. Nor am I being aggressive or making accusations. As is stated to me, it's in the edits. And you should care. This discussion is relevant. To new users as well as you since you took it to the forum. Everything else you asked is not worth going into for anybody. But the issue was never about the deletion until it came back to my page. Rightfully so. And the deletion is valid. But the blocking is not. I did what was asked and the admins took it further. If they do it again, well than, what loss to me? Only loss to the spreading of knowledge.
The problem is that you repeatedly recreated the page (without fixing the problems) even though it was deleted. You also removed the speedy deletion tag from it. And finally you put up a warning message on my "user" page implying that I added some external links in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I would seriously urge you to think about your actions and understand what you did wrong (a good way to start would be to read WP:N, WP:DE, WP:RS and WP:CIVIL), before submitting an unblock request. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942 How could I have known you we're not spamming if you deleted the page then immediately invited me to your "talk?" This is referred to as forced content. You were the first to delete, the subsequent deletes I felt we're not substantiated nor explained in detail. I am not responsible for other peoples emotions, if an argument is presented I have the right to rebuttal, whether they like it or not. Any administrator could and should have easily explained. And OK. Thanks for explaining.

Note to all Administrators regarding me being blocked:

I have read the above articles again. As requested by @Lemongirl942.

– I have found that a "notability" tag should have been placed in the article. WP:N

– I have found that I did not "disruptive" edit intentionally, because I did not understand how to correctly edit. WP:DE

– I have found that my sources led to "verifiable" and long lasting opinions of reliable authors, "and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." WP:RS

– I have determined that I have explained myself, and have been professional. WP:CIVIL

All of which infact boosts my position. And puts into perspective that all the deletions may have actually been presented wrong. However, according to the rules I suppose I am not separated or "third-party" enough to satisfy writing the article myself. And nothing more, or nothing less. Therefore, I request that all blocks be removed and the article to remain deleted. To which I will not personally create a new article of the same topic on Wikipedia.

I find connected administrators actions to be uncivil, unprofessional and based on emotion. Et al. WP:CIVIL

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ian.thomson and MaxSem I've blocked access to talk on the basis of WP:NOTHERE. Seems a complete waste of time to me. If either of you think I've been excessive with the block extension, I won't object to you overturning it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: *shrug*. Whatever, dude, your call. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

[edit]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

— Music1201 talk 07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CreativArticles5134&oldid=713313594"