Deefieldian

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was: 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 User:Deefieldian/sandbox 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 User:Deefieldian/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Bkissin (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Deefieldian! 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! Bkissin (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello Deefieldian. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Deefieldian. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Deefieldian|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS ^💬 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Am am not being paid by anyone whatsoever. Were you given some sort of proof of this? If so I would like to see it please Deefieldian (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you were not hired to create Spencer Charnas through a freelancing website? Please note that there is evidence off-wiki that I can share with admins. GSS ^💬 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see the evidence off-wiki,: please! Looks from your talk page that you have much bias against many people and it is the majority of your work here. Deefieldian (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just look at your freelancer account? I can't post those details here per WP:OUTING but I can share them with admins. GSS ^💬 17:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you show proof? You are not going to bait me I know what's brewing due to your false accusations. You are a sockpuppet and I have proof.Deefieldian (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Social Music (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praxidicae was: 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:Social Music 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:Social Music, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

CUPIDICAE💕 15:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Block was retribution

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for arguing a moderator who is a sockpuppet for GSS. This is retribution for calling out horrible work by moderators. Typical of a corrupt system and I will get around it as usual. Deefieldian (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed socking. Talk page access revoked. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 3 March 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.