User talk:Danielseo451

Ways to improve Gabriela Pochinki

Hi, I'm Lstanley1979. Danielseo451, thanks for creating Gabriela Pochinki!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hello! You need to tone down some of the language in this article to make it sound less like you are trying to promote Ms Pochinki and more encyclopaedic. It needs to be reshaped in accordance with WP:NPOV. Thank you!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. LS1979 (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jorge Horacio Brito, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. If you have an issue, take it to the talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Jorge Horacio Brito, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dewritech. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Jorge Horacio Brito because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dewritech (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jorge Horacio Brito. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dewritech (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2015 (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).

Danielseo451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can't believe I had been blocked! I made plenty contributions on Wikipedia in Spanish and in English. I've recently been involved in a discussion about an article that lacks of neutrality but I am a very active user. I informed a couple of months ago that user Superagente86 is a friend of mine that also made contributions to the same article that I do, but we are different users. Many thanks. --Danielseo451 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you, a "very active editor", edited a single article all year. And "your friend" just happens to edit that same article, edit-warring in conjunction with you. Even if we accepted that the accounts were operated by two people it would still be meatpuppetry. Huon (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2015 (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.

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).

Danielseo451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have nothing to do with user Sherlock4000. I do have with Superagente86 who is my friend and I ask you help with the article because I wasn't available to do some editings that I considered relevant. If necessary we won't do any more contributions together in order to avoid meatpuppetry. I made a couple of contributions in Wikipedia in Spanish and last year I made more contributions last year. The biography of Jorge Horacio Brito has been edited because the one that made user DaltonCastle lacks of neutrality. It accused the guy of corruption by just using media articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and this user has created and article with misleading information. Everything there is under suspicion and none was proved by a Court. Don't you think that Wikipedia should avoid this kind of contributions? That user has contributed with many biased articles because everything he wrote wasn't proved yet, so he is damaging many people's reputation who, until they are condemned by a Judge, are suposed to be innocent. The contribution we made were meant to make the article neutral. Please, reconsider your decision and unblock me.--Danielseo451 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm concerned that you're making conflict of interest edits without disclosure. You may want to read our terms of use which outline the required notification of paid editing. Some additional information about your relationship with the other account, along with Hgseo451 (talk · contribs) would be a good idea. I'm sure if I poked around, there would be some record of an Argentine SEO firm that has a client base similar to the ones impacted by your edits. It might be a good idea to operate with transparency. Kuru (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2015 (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.

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).

Danielseo451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please, reconsider my request. I understand that what happened was inappropriate for the site and I promise I will be more cautious in the future. All I wanted to do was to correct an article that I consider that damages the reputation of a person. I believe Wikipedia should not give that information until a judge considers that is true. What I didn't realize is that I was doing it in the wrong way. I apologise for my behaviour.--Danielseo451 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical evidence shows very clearly that you are also related to Vaquillonhilton, so I don't believe you are being truthful here. As pointed out above, you appear to have a conflict of interest and haven't reviewed our Terms of Use in regards to paid editing. For these reasons, I'm declining your request. Mike V • Talk 17:06, 26 June 2015 (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.

{{unblock| I created this user when I was blocked because I didn't understand what a block meant (I'm not an experienced editor here). I thought it was a problem with my Internet connection or my user, so I created a new user to make a test. I don't use it anymore and can be erased. In the other hand, do you believe that I am being paid for editing an article? That's not true. Ha! If I had been paid for all my contributions I could left my job. Really. If you analize the so-called conflict of interest, you will realize that in one side there is a user making the biography neutral and in the other side a user that is making politics with Wikipedia by making a totally biased article. It's true that is fully sourced, but it is just based on media articles that also have their own interests and the 'reveal' information that have not been proved by a court. I believe that Wikipedia should be aware about this and avoid information that can destroy a reputation until a judge says that it's true. Please, let me start over. I am not an expert on Wikipedia and I didn't know the consecuences of having another account. I hoe you can understand and help me to improve this wonrdeful source of information}}

You seem to have completely ignored my message above. I think the opportunity for you to operate transparently has closed. Kuru (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]