ButterflySuplex
August 2021
edit
Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Josh Barnett, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 11:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Studi
edit
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 Studi, 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. NarangD (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Laurent D'Jaffo. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're practically begging to be blocked here. First, if you want to talk to me, you can go to my Talk page, but you must be civil and WP:SIGN your posts. Despite my reverts of your posts, you have undone my removals twice now. Second, the material you are adding to Laurent D'Jaffo is not noteworthy or appropriate in any article, but particularly in a WP:BLP, and you must use the article Talk page and gain a consensus to include it. Again, you are aggressively reverting my edits rather than following correct Wikipedia procedures.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors, as you did at User talk:Bbb23. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Well, I would like to know why I've been blocked when I did nothing but contribute usefully before being disrupted and patronized. Apparently some people here have a problem with foreign contributors. Nobody acts this way on the FR version and dialogue is way more possible. There is literally no option here but being blocked, is it some kind of priviledge admins have ? Honestly I would like a real explanation because it makes no sense. My article was neutral, nobody gave me a chance to argue the deletion, it's just stonewall after stonewall.
- @ButterflySuplex: I blocked you due to your disruptive edits at Bbb23's talk page. You were told to stop, repeatedly. You edit warred on their talk page to re-insert your fairly uncivil comments. You've edit warred elsewhere. This is one of those blocks which shouldn't have had to happen - you can be entirely correct and have a valid point, but its no use unless you try to put that point across calmly and civilly. None of this has anything to do with you being, quote, a "
foreign contributor
". ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, so I took a little bit of time to reflect on what happened this week-end. Thinking about my initial reaction I realize that I was pretty animated when I saw the page being instantly deleted, so I do apologize for that. I also took the time to understand that the admin who I argued with had legit concerns about the validity of the said-page, I apologize for that as well.
Now that I feel ready to discuss this issue more politely, I’d like to refute certain points. Regarding infraction “G11”, I’d like to point out that I very carefully wrote the content of the page so it could not be seen as promotion. If there are parts of the article that causes disapprobation, please indicate them so I can correct them.
Regarding infraction “A7“, while it is true that Studi does not occupy a major place in the English-speaking business world, I noticed that pages such as “Open Classrooms” and “web@cadémie” had been created and are still online as we speak. I’d like to know what differentiate these pages form the one I uploaded. I’d like to discuss it with you.
ButterflySuplex (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here ButterflySuplex (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
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.