User talk:Umair444

Karl Lillrud moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Karl Lillrud, 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karl Lillrud (October 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mcmatter were:

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.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Karl Lillrud and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Karl Lillrud, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Umair444! 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! McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Karl Lillrud

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Karl Lillrud, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 17:34, 3 October 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).

Umair444 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have read all the policies and I'm sorry for moving the article to mainspace by myself. I was using Wikipedia from 5 years, and as student thought to do some article writing for someone, as a freelancer. I know that the person I want to bring here doesn't have significant references and I have talked to him; but without knowing the reasons that his carrier information will only cause trouble, he is still sending me the references about his success.

I'll write this article on him and will not move until some experienced writer ask me to do that. I want to cancel this task, but I can't... After the completion of article into draftspace, I'll talk to him; and maybe this will help. I'll really appreciate your help. Umair444 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked to continue writing about a person you know isn't notable enough for an article. Huon (talk) 21:06, 3 October 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.

Second Unblock Request

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).

Umair444 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here, I have declined the request and made negative rating from the first task I ever took. It's really disappointing; even after writing a bold article; I'm facing this....

Offer Cancelled

Still, it was my own fault.... Umair444 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It was indeed entirely your own fault. This was a clear violation of WP:PAID, WP:COI, and our terms of use. You haven't convinced me we can trust you'll never do something like that again, nor have you told us what you'll write about instead. Yamla (talk) 13:46, 4 October 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.

And here you got another Request

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).

Umair444 (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 that you still didn't accept the request. You really have some pretty strict rules. I'm not going to take any request of Wikipedia article writing, as I really faced conclusions; and now I think we really have to search things out before applying for a job. I now chalk it as a learning experience. I'm not planning on writing any article in future, maybe I'll do some editing as usual. So, I'm not planning to contribute then why I'm writing an unblock request. Well I think I really have a some kind of psychological problem, as I either want to progress things further or leave them. I can never work with something I think is not perfect as before... And I'm completely honest; I just don't want to see my first account as unblocked. I'm still a student and maybe after gaining some expertise in my field, I'll write to contribute on Wikipedia, but at that time I'm not ready for this. You can never believe humans, then why you asking me to convince you. You can still block me again permanently, if I wrote that article again. Just gave us warning thrice and then block that account permanently, I think that's much convenient and efficient way... Umair444 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you don't plan to make any contributions, there is no need to lift the block. When you have a contribution that you want to make, you may request unblock at that time. As Yamla notes, if you have any personal problems that prevent you from editing or using Wikipedia in the proper manner, please seek assistance for them; Wikipedia is not therapy. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 6 October 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.

Wikipedia is not therapy; see WP:THERAPY. If you have a psychological problem, I strongly suggest you seek therapy or medication and get it under control before requesting an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 10:25, 6 October 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).

Umair444 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's so illogical (no offense), if a new user is not planning to contribute here; then why is he allowed to contribute. I can easily create a new account but I don't wanna lose that 5 year old account, and I'm just writing it calmly... I break one of your term and now you should consider me a new user, or at least give me a warning. Trying to Convince: Here, I have a reason_ I can easily create some new accounts, do some editing (as 10 are required); and continue my freelancing. This is the flaw in this system, but unlike fake profiles, I'm not going to do that, as I think it's not good thing to do. I think these are the only true reasons I could find to convince you.... You told me before, that we can't unblock you as you're planning to write on 'Karl Lillrud' again. And thus instead of creating a fake account I cancelled my job, but still you're not going to accept it. P.S: Now I think, I really need to practice a pursuing manner of writing. Umair444 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"You should unblock me because I could evade the block if I wanted to," is hardly a compelling argument. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:48, 7 October 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.

Stating that you could create additional accounts but are being nice and not doing so doesn't exactly help your case. Someone else will review your request, but we are fast approaching the point at which your ability to make further appeals here will be withdrawn, unless you actually address the reasons for the block and tell what edits you want to make. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]