User talk:Orangemessi

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Hello Tbcofficial. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Tbcofficial. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tbcofficial|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Username concern

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Tbcofficial", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because It represents a company or role in a company, implying shared use. Organizations and roles are not permitted to have user accounts here. A username must be associated with an individual person. 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. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 18 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is really frustrating and unfortunate to hear that my account was blocked and draft page about the blue canvas with references was deleted which is one of the leading event production house a not for profit organisation working as youth group to promote uplift culture, talent and art in the conflict ridden Kashmir province of State of Jammu and Kashmir. This is a direct regional discrimination which is very shameful of organisation like wikipedia calling itself neutral. Kashmir being a conflict zone a least amount of data flows from there in digital form people across the globe should be aware of the achievements in all facets of Kashmir. Kashmir facing worlds highest internet gags and bans should be on contrary promoted to write articles rather than being discourages. This is really disturbing from wikipedia. and for further information I was completely not paid anything and was contributing to wikipedia on personal basis. Such users being discriminate and deleting topics from such ares should be banned so that they don't block or delete such great information in future. Tbcofficial (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2018 (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 review the links in the block notice, they will explain the block. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Orangemessi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Thought I am changing the username which is a right thing but my block for edits is completely wrong as there is no paid disclosure to show and is wrong therefore the draft page deleted should be retrived soon too.

Decline reason:

You aren't just blocked for "paid disclosure". Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about good causes or organizations. I'm glad that your organization does good work, but you should have your own website to tell the world about it, or make use of social media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as an encyclopedia, it has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about things like organizations. Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field. You haven't adequately answered my question about the nature of your relationship to this organization- do you represent it, or not? You seem to state that you are here to promote your organization("whats wrong in writing about an organisation that is working for a cause to promote people recognise them in a region."); please read WP:PROMO. I am declining your request as I do not see a benefit to Wikipedia in permitting you to promote your organization. If you want to edit about subjects other than your organization, you are welcome to make a new request. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed your account. Regarding your block, your username was "Tbcofficial", which suggests the user of this account is the official representative of The Blue Canvas- but you state above that you are here on a personal basis. Please explain this seeming contradiction. Even if you are not paid, it is still a conflict of interest for you to edit about your organization; please review that policy. You should not directly edit in the area of your conflict of interest. Regarding "regional discrimination", it is true that some parts of the world are not as hooked in to the Internet as others. That is not something that Wikipedia can control. It is not required for sources to be available online or even easily available, they just need to exist and be reliable. Anyway, that isn't even the reason for your block- which is simply the fact that you were editing to promote your own organization. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought my username is changed and I have given my testimony that there's no paid disclosure why am I stilled blocked and my draft article stil deleted. Regarding your view about I being the representative if the organisation whats wrong in writing about an organisation that is working for a cause to promote people recognise them in a region. This is informative and inspiration contribution from my side towards the Wikipedia community. There are guidelines to be neutral but Wikipedia doesn't prohibit you from writing such articles. Thank you I have you end my ban and undelete my draft page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemessi (talk • contribs)

You only need one open unblock request; any subsequent comments should be as a standard comment(without the unblock tag). 331dot (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am writing an open unblock request unblock my account and undelete the draft page.

If you choose to make another unblock request, you will need to format it as you did your other requests. Comments made after that do not need the formatting. To have a chance of success, you will need to address my questions- though another administrator will review it. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I represent this organisation and I m not promoting it I was writing a neutral article using source and references from national and local news articles.

I'm curious as to why you said you were here on a "personal basis" if that's the case- but in any event, you are free to make that argument in another unblock request. You will need to make another formal open unblock request, as your previous requests are now closed. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

so as per you mr. Administrator i make another unblock request. And I have already answered to your questions personal baisis because I am a representative as well as i was trying to contribute towards a healthy article using credible sources from national media and some exceptional writers. Thank you.

Decline reason:

If you're going to make passive-aggressive unblock requests and expect me (or another admin) to unblock you, you couldn't be more wrong... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 18 October 2018 (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.

Does being an administrator give you extra rights than ordinary people, you have declined more than 5 unblock request and asking me everytime to file new in order to get unblocked. Theres nothing aggressive in my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemessi (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Being an administrator only gives us the ability to carry out tasks and extra functions that, for practical reasons, aren't granted and given out to all users. We have no higher "rank", "status", or "exemptions or special things" than anybody else. That being said, one of our responsibilities is to review and make judgment calls on unblock requests, and decide whether or not to unblock users based on their sincerity, the likelihood that the issues will continue, and the user's overall demeanor and what they plan to do after being unblocked (among other things). We're not declining your unblock requests to be jerks and to screw with you... we're doing this as part of our responsibilities to keep the project from further disruption. For you to be unblocked, you need to tell us that the problems won't continue... that you understand why you were blocked, what policies were violated that caused the block to occur, what you plan to do and what articles or pages you plan to contribute to after you're unblocked, and what your overall purpose is and your underlying reason is for being here... are you here to help contribute to the project? Or are you here to make promotional edits? We need to be assured that your future contributions will be positive and in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before we consider unblocking you. Such requirements are fair and practical and apply to anybody, and would be what others would want to see on any other website if it were similar to this one. You're a smart person; you would understand that, wouldn't you? Aren't what we're asking for fair things that you'd ask for if you were in our shoes? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is amazing I am impressed at last you are the one we can call administrator. You got great leadership qualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemessi (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the compliment. I wish you well, and I wish you good luck with your unblock appeal process. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that I felt that your previous unblock request above (especially where you say "so as per you mr. Administrator" and "I have already answered to your questions..." among other things) was made in a passive-aggressive or condescending tone that expressed frustration toward the blocking administrator instead of addressing the issues discussed above. If this was not your intent and if I mistranslated the tone and demeanor in your request, please accept my sincere and humble apologies for the mistranslation and for the wrong assumption. It was not my intent to make this process harder on you or to make things difficult for you; I simply responded and declined your request above and with the way I interpreted your request reason taken into account. As I said above: I wish you well and I wish you good luck with your unblock appeal process. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understand no need for apologies I know you were just doing your part of the work. Now if you can please respond to my fresh unblock request below.

{{Unblock on hold|Orangemike|I request for a unblock for a block that was due to some misunderstanding as I have clearly stated that I am the representative of the organisation and I wasn't writing a promotional article that article wasn't even started i had just put up the infobox. I ll be writing that article as neutral and provide a healthy contribution to Wikipedia and use credible sources from national, international and local media as well as renowned authors and writers.|AGK ■ 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)}} Now declined; moved to end to retain continuity. AGK ■ 19:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who originally warned you (I didn't block you although I am an admin), I will say you have given a reasonable unblock request, and I would support unblocking you except for one unresolved question. You have contradicted yourself regarding the capacity in which you are editing here. First you said you were here on a personal basis, and now you say you represent your organization. Are they paying you? Even if they are not paying you directly to edit, but are paying you and you are editing here for publicity purposes (even if your writing is not promotional), you are considered a paid editor and you need to disclose that, or at least explain it adequately, before you can be unblocked. What exactly is your position in your organization? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I would like to explain I have been saying from beginning I am the representative of the organisation and I am not paid at all in any form from the organisation and have not been asked by the organisation to write about them I am one of the members of the organisation helping to give platform to all artists in this conflict zone. Since I was neither paid not asked by the organisation I was here on personal baisis as I wanted to write a healthy article on Wikipedia like all other articles so that becomes inspiring to other people to know and gain knowledge about such causes. I would surely like your help in further improving the article.

I am a little confused here. You state "I am the representative of the organization" and then say "I was here on personal basis" and say the organization didn't ask you to be here. Both of those statements cannot be true at the same time. Are you trying to say that while you work with the organization, you are not here as its official representative? Why did you choose the name "tbcofficial" if you are not here at the request of the organization? Do you work for the organization, even if you are not here as its representative? 331dot (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used the name tbcoffical as I wanted to make things credible and am in the capacity to use the name but I realised later that official names writing their articles are not encouraged through Wikipedia policies and we are asked make a neutral which I would had made any way. Moreover the answer still remains the same that I wasn't paid or asked by the organisation but wrote in my personal capacity and not for promotion but for information.

Still waiting for someone to respond to my unblock request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemessi (talk • contribs) 06:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we haven't forgotten about your unblock request here :-). Since 331dot and other admins are much more familiar with your situation and block than I am, I'm going to have 331dot (or another admin) review the request instead of me. It's both the right thing to do and the fair thing to do for you. 331dot and many other administrators are offline at the moment but will return soon. Someone will review your request and respond to it. I appreciate your patience and understanding in the meantime while we wait for one of them to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I ll be waiting till then can you please undelete my draft page?

In fairness I will let someone else review it as I reviewed one above; the next reviewer may do whatever they think best without consulting me. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but its being really hard for me. I hope it's not being done intentionally. I tried lot's of time and am exaushted this will be my final try for unblock request. I hope you make a decision that you seem fit. Thank you everyone has been a healthy conversation here.

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).

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

Request reason:

no one responding.

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. AGK ■ 20:35, 31 October 2018 (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.

Questions from administrator(s)

Hi, Orangemessi:

Have you edited Wikipedia or created an account since being blocked?
Please demonstrate a contribution that, if unblock, you would like to make by cpying the source of an article, pasting it into a new section, and making the change(s) you would make.

AGK ■ 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize once more: if you do not satisfy us that you want to contribute to the betterment of this project in ways which have nothing at all to do with The Blue Canvas, you are unlikely to become or to remain unblocked. Wikipedia does not exist in order for you to publicize your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. If you want to promote something, create your own website somewhere else. We welcome editors from your part of the world, but like all other editors you have to want to contribute to the project itself in some way, not just come here to do promotion of your pet cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 31 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request for a unblock for a block that was due to some misunderstanding as I have clearly stated that I am the representative of the organisation and I wasn't writing a promotional article that article wasn't even started i had just put up the infobox. I ll be writing that article as neutral and provide a healthy contribution to Wikipedia and use credible sources from national, international and local media as well as renowned authors and writers.

Decline reason:

As you have not responded to the two questions posed above, I am declining this unblock request. AGK ■ 19:12, 23 November 2018 (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.

Why request is pending??

I have already goven so many reasons Orangemessi (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another reviewer was waiting for a comment from Orangemike. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, two important questions were asked of you. Generally, we do not unblock accounts that were blocked with good reason unless we can be sure the problems that led to your block will not reoccur. Some time has passed without a response to these questions, so I have now declined your most recent substantive request. You are welcome to submit a further request, but please respond in full to the two #Questions from administrator(s) before doing so. AGK ■ 19:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]