User talk:ExploreWiki

Wikipedia clearly says, do not revert changes of a user page. So don't do it. I want my page clean. And yes, Bye Bye. Vandalize pages, remove quality references. You can't fix pages but you don't like them fixed either. Thank you for everything. Bye.

June 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know what to say, those guys made me scared and I told I will declare in the future, since then, no future edit was done that was paid. That Guy Rentier is a paid editor and has a decisive account on Wikipedia, what is he doing there on upwork? HE applies and when he don't get a job he feels hurt same is the case with others who are against me. They led me towards getting paid for Wikipedia, I never know about this and they accused me I thought ok you can get paid. All articles I edited are extremely vandalised by justlettersandnumbers despite good references, this isn't against Wikipedia rule?. All guys involved in upwork are paid editors with multiple accounts, only I used my original Identity. I already closed my all profiles. when they don't get projects after talking to clients and they charge high they trace pages. They have the authority that's why you can't investigate them. And why you reverted changes? The content is fine on all articles if the problem is with me why delete the edits. I joined Wikipedia clean they accused me of paid and I went to paid. But I again left using it as I told I will declare any COI in the future, so there is no point in reverting old edits I guess. After my final discussion with Bilby I didn't even use upwork or anything, and I don't know why there exist multiple accounts on my name, someone on upwork contacted me that they have authority on Wikipedia and they want me to publish pages that they will approve and I didn't even reply them that's why this happened to me. I read all policy and I will declare the COI. It's funny that he is reverting changes which have nothing to do with paid and I did it just for the experience, that shows his mental health. I suggest, please investigate these guys, in a disguise of authority they are running a cartel of projects on upwork. I have evidence of all these jobs but the problem is your investigation is poor, they do edits and publishing from newer accounts and approve them from their authority account. I want my account restored. The point is since my discussion with Bilby I didn't edit any article that is paid if I did I would have declared, I previously denied that's why I was scared in accepting it. And whatever I received I paid to the charity, I can show you transfer slips. And I don't know who created fake profiles on my name on upwork. You can see that I did not edited anything since my last talk with bilby on my talk page and I am not sure why these guys are reverting every article I edit that has nothing to do with paid, in personal war you guys ruined pages of Wikipedia, my intention was never to hurt a knowledge base that people seek. I'll still not edit anything else but I want to raise the point that you have to investigate these guys also. There is no point in erasing quality edits done to the pages. You blocked me fine, but why to vandalize pages who have quality references and are fine, if it doesn't violates any wiki policy then you have see yourself if you are fair with new or old users. ExploreWiki (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block is for copyright violation, and you have not even mentioned that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was pushed too far by some editors and I did it unintentionally, I know everything now and I will comply with it. ExploreWiki (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blaming your copyright violations and violations of WP:PAID on being "pushed too far by some editors"? No. That's not plausible. I mean, it's not even that this claim is not plausible, it doesn't even make sense. Yamla (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2017 (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.

Please do not remove declined unblock requests while you are still blocked - I have reinstated it for you. Someone else will review your latest request, but I have to say the suggestion that other editors pushed you too far and made you violate copyright seems quite bizarre. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were told you are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests while still blocked. If you do it again you will lose the ability to edit this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia clearly says, do not revert changes of a user page. So don't do it. I want my page clean.
Moved here from top. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLANKING where it says...
"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block."

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, got it, not removing that info. But don't bring my good bye note at the bottom ExploreWiki (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making Headway Foundation moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Making Headway Foundation, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Directory moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jasmine Directory, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HK URBEX moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, HK URBEX, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:HK URBEX concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:HK URBEX, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:HK URBEX

Hello, ExploreWiki. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "HK URBEX".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jasmine Directory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jasmine Directory 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/Jasmine Directory until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. SmartSE (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]