User talk:Louis Versace

Welcome!

Hi Louis Versace! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TylerBurden (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 10:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understood my mistake and It won't happen again

{{unblock|reason=Hello, I was blocked two days ago after I created a new page called ‘Parcos’. It was mentioned that I wrote the article as a form of promotion for the Parcos brand. But that was totally not my intention. I’ve been trying to distract myself and found a new side hobby with Wikipedia. So I went to the mall to check brands I can write about and found parcos.

After consulting my friend, it came to my notice that the article did look like promotional content sometimes. It was not conscious and I just wanted to mention things again so I cover important points everywhere, also since I don’t have years of writing experience I sometimes tried to use the words mentioned in the articles. So that could be the reason that the Administrator thought that I was advertising.

My intention was never to advertise or show any form of bias towards anyone. I’ve now realized why I got banned and will make the changes to remove any form of content that could even 1% look like an advertisement. I’m also working on my writing skills and learning Wikipedia guidelines to ensure such rookie mistakes won’t happen again. Thank you for reading! <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>}} Louis Versace (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to format the request properly or it won't show as an active unblock request to the administrators. TylerBurden (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Understood! Thank you so much! Louis Versace (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understood my mistake and It won't happen again

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Louis Versace (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Hello, I was blocked two days ago after I created a new page called ‘Parcos’. It was mentioned that I wrote the article as a form of promotion for the Parcos brand. But that was totally not my intention. I’ve been trying to distract myself and found a new side hobby with Wikipedia. So I went to the mall to check brands I can write about and found parcos.[reply]

After consulting my friend, it came to my notice that the article did look like promotional content sometimes. It was not conscious and I just wanted to mention things again so I cover important points everywhere, also I tried to use the words mentioned in the articles to explain . So that could be the reason that the Administrator thought that I was advertising.

My intention was never to advertise or show any form of bias towards anyone. I’ve now realized why I got banned and will make the changes to remove any form of content that could even 1% look like an advertisement. I’m also working on my writing skills and learning Wikipedia guidelines to ensure such rookie mistakes won’t happen again. I'm also planning to write more about beauty brands, F1, sports and company related edits and also made a note of 4 edits that I can make when my accounts get unblocked.Thank you for reading!

Decline reason:

You do not identify why your sources were inappropriate. This will be necessary before you are unblocked, so we know you will not use similar sources in the future. I also do not buy the "I wandered around the mall and picked this company to edit about" explanation. Maybe someone else will, but not me. In any event, it is doubtful you will be unblocked to edit about companies, so you will need to tell us what topics you will edit about instead. I am declining your request, you may make another for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2022 (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.

What other accounts do you have? 331dot (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:I made Zero accounts before this and made zero account since I made this one

You said "...I can make when my accounts get unblocked." People choose words for a reason, but okay. So when you were wandering around the mall what made you decide to write about Parcos first? Can you tell us why the sources you used in your draft were all inappropriate? 331dot (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did make the mistake of writing accounts but that's not what I meant.

I was walking around and I was looking for brands that were famous but not too big since they must've already had their wikipedia page. So I tried looking at niche stores and mostly found brands that already had wiki pages or Company's I didn't find interesting enough. I then found Kama Ayurveda and Parcos to be good fit. That's when I decided to write about Parcos since it already had many articles written about it.

About the sources being inappropriate, I thought the brand was covered quite decently on the web by good authority publications that's why I decided to go with those links. But since now I know that the sources were inappropriate then I'll remove all the content with these links and find new ones or maybe just scrap the idea and continue with other edits. Louis Versace (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "wiki pages", we have articles. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not make the same mistake again.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, So I was blocked a few days ago and I appealed for unblock and my appeal was rejected since my explanation for why I used PR articles as link was not nicely explained. As I mentioned in my previous appeal as well, I thought Parcos was covered heavily on high authority Indian websites and my lack of understanding of it being PR articles lead to me making the mistakes of adding them. Since it has came to my notice I read through Disclaimer, Byline and Reliable sources to understand that almost all the sources I used were PR articles and I need to use properly sourced articles like URL In the future I obviously want to continue to write about the Business, Companies, Sports related (Football (Soccer), F1, Musicians and Marketing concepts for eg AIDA (marketing). Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

Sorry, I'm not convinced you can recognize not reliable sources. Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2022 (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.

@Deepfriedokra:Hey, I understand your perspective. But I just wanna know how I can improve and I mentioned one specific URL that could be appropriate. Was that also not appropriate? Thank you.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, I’m re-appealing as they suggested that I didn’t understand how to differentiate between reliable and PR articles. That’s why I went through different Wikipedia articles and youtube videos for several days to know how I could increase my understanding. I’ve read through different Wikipedia articles like Reliable Source examples, Reliable sources, Verifiablity, Citing Sources, Notability and Notability for Organizations with the earlier articles which I mentioned in the previous appeal like Disclaimer, Byline and Reliable sources. From them, I learnt different ways that could help me easily spot PR and inappropriate articles and also write content for notable brands and other topics. Now I can verify the notability of the brand, check if the articles are Reliable or not and how to choose the correct link for the content between options. I also plan to take things slow and continue learning as I’m very intrigued with everything Wikipedia and want to contribute more and more. Thank you!

Decline reason:

Closing as stale; you may make a fresh request. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2022 (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.

Louis Versace (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently convinced. Please pick three sources from each of [1] and [2] and explain whether they are reliable. MER-C 10:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Okay I'll do that. But the 2nd link is the same as the 1st Louis Versace (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I had lost the second draft - so here is a substitute: [3]. MER-C 16:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MER-C, Please find my analysis for the above mentioned drafts.

Analysis for Fengru Lin Reference Links:

Link 3:

Referenced Article is written by Melissa Stewart who is a Journalist at CNA Digital and has written 385 researched articles. CNA Digital is also a reputated publication in Asia. So this for me is a reliable source.

Link 10:

Referenced Article has a conflict of Interest. The referenced website company has made an investment in the company. This is not an appropriate source.

Link 16:

Referenced Article is a primary source from Her World website. It’s a reliable source according to me.

Analysis for XenData Reference Links:

Link 1:

Referenced URL is of a Directory. Directory is not reputable and the data is not reliable and trust worthy.

Link 3:

Referenced URL is not trustworthy. Any person can add their software to the website and the data can’t be proven to be true.

Link 4:

Referenced URL has no mention of the text (directly and indirectly) it was referred to. It’s not an appropriate reference. Louis Versace (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MER-C, can you please check my above analysis? Thanks! Louis Versace (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MER-C please read through my analysis and let me know what you think. Thanks! Louis Versace (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to an uninvolved admin to make that call. MER-C 18:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Louis Versace (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

Left note on MER-C's talk. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Means a lot. I'm continuing my research to learn how everything should be practiced and also have made note of 3 edits that I can make. So it's a nice time learning through all of this haha :) Louis Versace (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra - just checking you saw MER-C's comment above devolving the matter to you Nosebagbear (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, I’m re-appealing because my appeal was left in stale. I answered all the questions and did all the tasks mentioned but for the past 2 months they aren't replying to my tasks or activities or requests. Then my request got declined because it was ignored again and again. Can you please look into my appeal and all the previous appeals on my talk page. I've done multiple tasks and re-assured my innocence while also showing my understanding of the rules. Please let me know what do I need to do to get my request accepted. Thank you!2405:201:1E:E959:EDB4:4427:15A2:37D0 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request, it is a request that someone read your entire talk page and address all the points you've raised in every conversation. Sorry, but no. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2022 (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 log in before posting; please confirm you wrote the above. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC) @331dot: Hey, It was me who submitted the unblock request. Sorry for the confusion[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Parcos

Hello, Louis Versace. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Parcos, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Parcos

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

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]