User talk:Xqlusivevan

Your submission at Articles for creation: the gadget flow (February 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/the gadget flow.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rinkle gorge (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Gadget Flow Inc (February 19)

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Gadget Flow Inc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Xqlusivevan, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! LaMona (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Gadget Flow Inc (April 10)

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Gadget Flow Inc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bradv 19:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Gadget Flow Inc (April 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Roe 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still excessively promotional in tone. You need to stick to the facts, and reference independent, reliable sources that establish this company's notability.

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:The Gadget Flow Inc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Joe Roe (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

You work for the company The Gadget Flow. Making an article about your company is prohibited on Wikipedia. Read WP:COI, and please, if this article is deleted, Do not start another one on the same topic. If this article is kept, which consensus seems to be against, most of your edits will probably be reverted, due to WP:COI, you can not edit on this topic. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, do not make an article abut your company. It isn't notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't been abusing anything, I haven't created new users from my computer, the same IP was used create 2 new accounts at the same PLACE who was people I know with real names and real accounts and wanted to participate to a voting, this is not illegal or prohibited. Xqlusivevan (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, actually, it is. Here's the policy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:24, 2 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't aware that is was not recommended to use the same IP, the user will re-create his account from another IP but I request my account to be unblocked as I had nothing to do with it, they were people who wanted to express their opinion in this matter, I understand the issue and I read the policies. Thanks for your understanding. Xqlusivevan (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Meatpuppetry, and the user does not appear to understand why this is inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2016 (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.

Non-admin Comment: Cassieou and Giannis8821 apparently created accounts from your workplace (the article subject) - or at the very least the same IP as yours, only voted on the AfD, and did not declare their conflict of interest. Meat or sock, their purpose was an attempt to game the system, something that is rather frowned upon here, obviously. Also, I received your PM on IRC (I am 'Waggie' on IRC). I think you should probably review WP:CANVASS as well as the other guideline/policy pages that you've been referred to. Your message indicates that you aren't familiar with the relisting process at AfD, so I'll give a short explanation here. If a deletion discussion does not receive enough attention, it is relisted to gather more discussion. It does not restart the voting process, so prior votes still stand unless the voter wishes to change their vote before the discussion is closed. The user should NOT recreate their account from another IP. The IP is just one (of many) indicators of sock/meatpuppetry, which is the real issue. Trying to game the system (by creating other accounts, or getting people to create accounts to support your viewpoint) is not allowed on Wikipedia. An article should stand on it's own merits and per policy/guidelines. I imagine that the administrators will need to see you acknowledge your understanding of these concepts before you are unblocked. I hope this helps. Chrisw80 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Comment: Chrisw80 Thanks for your feedback, I'm not familiar with all these policies obviously but I just went ahead and read every one of them, I wasn't aware then but I am now, the accounts that were created from he same IP though were not created to "trick the system or anything" they simply wanted to express their opinion about the issue and they have every right to do so, they are people that I described the issue in person and wanted to take action, they weren't forced to do this. I understand now that it wasn't right to create their accounts from he same IP as indeed it looked suspicious, thanks for clarifying. Xqlusivevan (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's still no good. You may not recruit friends to support you; we'll immediately notice when someone who has never edited Wikipedia suddenly shows up to support your position at, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gadget Flow. You need to convince established Wikipedia editors that your position is supportable. It's not a vote; we're not counting how many people agree with you, but rather, we're evaluating their arguments. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:42, 2 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand what was the issue, I wasn't aware about meatpuppetry but obviously now I'm after reading the wikipedia polices more carefully, let's be realistic you cannot read all the wikipedia policies before you use it, I've learned my lesson here, please unblock my account. 80.107.189.185 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only: We cannot accept a logged-out IP request, so please log in and make a new one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2016 (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.

Comment: I support a second chance for this user, as I think this user does understand (well enough) now the mistake made. Let's give them a chance to make good. While their beginnings here aren't a desirable start, I think there are the makings of a productive editor here. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to disregard AGF, the editor in question here is actually a very senioer member of the company article they created. A very simple search makes that clear. The Cassieou account is likewise also a senior member of the company, again a simple search will reveal the identity of the user behind the account. The last account is another employee, again a simple search reveals the identity. Xqlusivevan would need to make a very strong case for their unblock. Blackmane (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand what was the issue, I wasn't aware about meatpuppetry but obviously now I'm after reading the wikipedia polices more carefully, let's be realistic you cannot read all the wikipedia policies before you use it, I've learned my lesson here, please unblock my account. Xqlusivevan (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no reason to unblock you if you're only here to promote your website. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:09, 6 May 2016 (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.

Because of your repetitive unblock requests, I've revoked your access to this page. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]