Jump to content

User talk:Javieralexvr

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 27) =

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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 when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Javieralexvr! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CancerLinQ has been accepted

[edit]
CancerLinQ, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Stevey7788 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thank you for disclosing your paid editing status. As per WP:Paid, please provide links on your Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where you advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services e.g. your Upwork account etc. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem GSS (talk|c|em) but I am not currently advertising on any site. The first time I got the job reading a post on Reddit, after messaging the employer he gave me my first task (to make a draft on zach avery) which I did and he liked it. Now we just talk in private and discuss new clients. Not sure how he gets the clients though Javieralexvr (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a link to that Raddit thread? GSS (talk|c|em) 04:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
did not know that Gabrielle had her article deleted before but I will try to improve her article and do a AfC submission again, I think her career is growing. the reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/slavelabour/comments/b0qtyl/task_need_a_wikipedia_page_written_in_the_next/Javieralexvr (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Javieralexvr (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)+[reply]
        • I want your opinion on this GSS (talk), Plastiq has many independent sources like business insider and still is rejected. why is this? because I disclosed I think. I have seen much worse companies with less sources and they are live without any problem.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabrielle Ryan (July 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GSS was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please note the article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle Ryan.
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 when they have been resolved.
GSS (talk|c|em) 04:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CancerLinQ (July 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Plastiq (July 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by K.e.coffman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Does not meet WP:NORG & WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources.
K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CancerLinQ (July 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Their own website, blogs and press releases are not suitable 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 when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

[edit]

MER-C what now? I am not a sockpuppet of josher8a, did you block me for editing drafts?

Your submission at Articles for creation: CancerLinQ (August 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Likely WP:ORG failure, and created by a now-blocked series of sock editors in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING.
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 when they have been resolved.
SamHolt6 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to recover my account?

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

hello I want to to edit the encyclopedia again and I am not linked with Josher8a anymore. He is dead to me, What can I do? I will never use multiple accounts again but I had to test it. I know there isn't a short path with wikipedia Javieralexvr (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hi — unfortunately I am not permitted to unblock you as the block was made by a Checkuser. I can decline to unblock you, however, which I am doing for bookkeeping reasons since you aren't contending the Checkuser results were incorrect in identifying you as a sockpuppet of Josher8a, which is (almost) the only reason for reversal of a Checkuser block. If, however, you intended to claim the Checkuser results were incorrect, then please feel free to make another unblock request. I'd recommend that in that request you more clearly explain your past relationship with Josher8a and how it is you are "not linked with" them anymore. To your question about how you can resume editing Wikipedia, please read the essay WP:STANDARD. There is also guidance here you might find useful. I hope this answers your questions, however, please feel free to ping me if it does not or you need additional assistance. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2019 (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.

I guess I could create a new account but its better to straight this account since it has my signature username.I am a real person you can check my social media or whatever you like Javieralexvr (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — if you would like to request to be unblocked for purposes of changing the username of this account in order to obfuscate a real name, you can use this template. Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Chetsford:. I will do that and I will follow your advice to persue the unblock.Javieralexvr (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zach Avery has been accepted

[edit]
Zach Avery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josher8a

[edit]

Hello @SamHolt6:@MER-C:@Chetsford: please assume good faith and have open mind while reading this. I am ready to confess I am the sockpuppet farm master, so I will just tell the truth about it, hope we can agree to something. I am investing too much time finding ways to do paid editting without having my accounts blocked, I want to change this, with this vision I have come to you to discuss my situation and why I've created the farm. Starting from the beginning, I live in Venezuela, I struggle with money and my country is going through the equivalent of US Great Recession or maybe worse. One day on my mission to make money online, I found an opportunity on Reddit to work on Wikipedia doing paid editing. At the time, I'd never used Wikipedia and I had a lot to learn about the mechanics of the page and the guidelines of the community, Josher8a is my friend from college and he is a 10 year old Wikipedia when I commented to him about Wikipedia he told me he was an experienced wikipedian and agreed to help me familiarize and get around Wikipedia. You could say that he was my teacher but he is not involved with the sockpupetry if you could free him from the issue I would appreciate it. My first article Cancerlinq wasnt paid editting, for me it was a learning article but I got me off with the wrong idea. The article was reviewed and approved very quickly and led me to think that Wikipedia was easy and I had nothing to worry about. I met the Reddit person and he started giving me clients for potential articles, my job was to get them live. Logically, I started using the moving article feature and somehow for the first two months nobody told me to stop and use AfC leading me to think that wikipedia was even more easy than I thought. One day I was hit by the truth and I got blocked. I still had clients and needed money so I looked at alternative ways to keep my edits going. This is where the real sockpuppet farm started and Josher8a was done with it. I had 'learned' and he was no longer involved. After that, I have been blocked for many reason but always learning and improving my methods to avoid being discovered and write better drafts. I no longer wish to do this, It has cost me too many clients and time. I want to be able to disclose all my clients and submit draft to AfC without being blocked for advertising, I know wikipedia discourage paid editing but for me it is the best opportunity to have a dignified life I've encounter so far. I am sorry but I am a survivor and my instinct told me to fight the system. I agree to stop abusing multiple accounts and let everything come to light but I want to find a way where I can work and sleep soundly. I am open to contribute in any way to the encyclopedia, getting webhost ips to block, copywriting, identifying other undisclosed paid editting, or whatever. I would really do anything to straighten this and maybe continue with our lives happily..Don't destroy me, Regards Javieralexvr (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @TheSandDoctor: @GSS: @ST47: @NinjaRobotPirate:

note: paid editting is discouraged but not prohibited and I do want to follow every guideline there is. My inexperience and the circumstances encouraged me to do what I did but I would rather do it following policies and with your blessing. I hope to hear back from you all and close this investigation. Javieralexvr (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6:

[edit]

Hello, I did start the new draft on mark kendall and I don't think it was abusive but I understand why you can't have his page around or even review it. I don't even know why his references were unreliable or his article promotional but if it makes you happy I will never create a draft for him again. This is my main account not on proxy, can we talk, please? I long being able to edit and discuss like normal people. I don't care about going against you or any other mod.

What I want does not matter but I will ask anyways

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

It wasn't wrong to block me, but I understand why I've been blocked and I don't want to go against the tide any longer, in order to do this I want to recover my main account and disclose any future and current client I might have. I regret using multiple accounts but I had no other choice at the moment other than keep up and I did not really understand Wikipedia as I do now. Josher8a does not have anything to do with the sockpuppet farm, it was me the whole time, someone got it wrong from the beggining. Javieralexvr (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If this is true, then you have been running one of this year's most prolific paid editing sockfarms, and you have been doing so as recently as last week. The only possible route you have back to editing is the standard offer, and I seriously doubt that the community would accept you back in six months' time without a firm commitment to avoid paid editing on Wikipedia altogether. The absolute earliest date that an unblock would even be considered at this point would be May 2020. Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 12 November 2019 (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.

@Yunshui: I wish it was prolific, most my articles and edits have been reverted or deleted. I know I made a mistake but I was new,and you have to understand that this was important to me and I did not know what I was doing. Javieralexvr (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for something I never was, I am not a sockpuppet of Josher8a, I was pushed by the circumstances to do abuse multiple accounts because I needed to edit somehow and I was new to the encyclopedia nobody gave me a warning and showed me the way properly, I am now more experienced and know more about the community. I just want the opportunity to discuss edits, articles and AfC submission, in a world of immediacy you cannot ask me to be patient and not make mistakes, most people make mistakes and learn from them and that is what I am doing here. I know I made a mistake but all I ask is that you let me open up and do things right. Javieralexvr (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've worked hard to show you can't be trusted. There's no possibility of unblock at this time. Your best chance is to wait until no sooner than May 13, 2020 with zero edits, then apply under WP:SO. At that time, the possibility of unblock is slim but greater than zero. Slim because you've worked hard to show you can't be trusted. Yamla (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2019 (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.

Back in July you also pulled our heartstrings to get unblocked and then carried on abusing the system regardless and only had second thoughts when it was clear you couldn't get away with it. I agree with Yunshui that your best bet is to wait six months. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: that wasn't false but I got impatient anyways and used other accounts to support myself, I regret this and I obviously don't want to make the same mistake again. My situation in Venezuela is bad this is the truth, I had the pressure from my clients, I was stressed and my life is a mess... I know these are just excuses but I still accept these mistakes, learned from them and want to move forward. I joined Wikipedia in april, in July I still thought that I could do whatever without consequences I have experienced now. I cannot make you believe me but you should know that people can change opinion, improve and decide to do things right. Javieralexvr (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to donate half my earnings to Wikipedia for six months instead. I mean this Javieralexvr (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if there is a market for paid editting someone is going to do it, why not me?. Javieralexvr (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You'll need to completely retract this statement when you apply for an unblock in the future. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which statement?? @Yamla:. If it was the second, it is true that there IS a market for this kind of job because its hard to handle wikipedia, don't be blind. I know I've have abused multiple accounts but that has nothing to do with me being trustworthy... I was pushed by the circumstances and I found no other way than abusing to reach my goal, all I am asking is that you let me do AfC submission and wait patiently for my review and if yet I make another mistake you can just block me again.. what is to lose? If I am blocked, I have no choice but to continue to do sockpupetry as I don't have any other income and still have some clients that want my services. I hate to do this and would prefer to have the choice of doing my job with your consent and following guidelines. Its illogical to banish for 6 months to earn your 'trust' when we can talk. I want to do things the right way but I don't want to lose my only income. Javieralexvr (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's really going to change in six months? I will still be the same person @Smartse:@Yamla:@Yunshui:.... I am being honest with you and everyone knows that its hard to be honest. I have clients and I need to work, this is my truth and it just won't go away just because you blocked me. I am the most tired from this And I know I can contribute too, even with my sockpuppets I did copywriting, fixed grammar, broken links, discussed talk pages that were completely unrelated with paid edits. From what I understand the six-month threshold is adjustable and not mandatory. Javieralexvr (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I am blocked, I have no choice but to continue to do sockpupetry [sic] - that in itself is more than enough to show that you care far more about making bank than about following Wikipedia's rules. I am revoking your access to this talkpage. You may appeal via UTRS six months from now if you wish the community to reconsider your ban from Wikipedia; any edits you make during that time will reset the clock (and will of course be deleted or reverted on sight). Yunshui 雲水 08:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CancerLinQ concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:CancerLinQ, 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) 01:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gabrielle Ryan concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gabrielle Ryan, 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) 01:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gabrielle Ryan

[edit]

Hello, Javieralexvr. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gabrielle Ryan".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:CancerLinQ

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Javieralexvr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:CancerLinQ, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:CancerLinQ

[edit]

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

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! S0091 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Javieralexvr&oldid=1024541374"