Ronnystarboy
Welcome!
edit
|
April 2020
editWelcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page VRIO has been reverted.
Your edit here to VRIO was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://sersc.org/journals/index.php/IJAST/article/view/10445/5628) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ronnystarboy. 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 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. 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:Ronnystarboy. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ronnystarboy|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. creffett (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Creffett: Hello! I thank you for providing me your feedback. I appreciate your efforts. I want to make an explicit disclosure that I am not being compensated directly or indirectly for any of my edit. I am a new editor and I have a lot to learn. I thank you once again for mentioning the concern. Kindly let me know any other disclosure I need to make, I shall be happy to do it.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Theory of HR Quantification has been accepted
edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Sulfurboy (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Nomination of Theory of HR Quantification for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theory of HR Quantification is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of HR Quantification until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Ronnystarboy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I joined Wikipedia on April 22, 2020 with great vigour and enthusiasm. I joined with the purpose of contributing to the community and becoming a responsible Wikipedia editor. I tried learning about Wikipedia guidelines pursuant to which I made a total of 48 edits and submitted a request for a page creation at WP:AFC which was approved as well. Being extremely financially weak, I have to operate with shared IP address (WP:SHARE) and this seems be the reason why my account got blocked. I have no connection with any other user. Moreover out of the 4 suspected sockpuppet accounts mentioned with my account, I have a common edit with only 1 user at Wikipedia page and only one user at AfD. I am a very simple, innocent and decent person. I humbly request for condoning my account block. One more reason has been cited for my block at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poojajainhr is about "Double voting at some AfDs". I want to express that since the date I joined Wikipedia, I had participated in only 1 AfD that too for my created page which got nominated for deletion in just 13 hours of being accepted at WP:AFC. There is no chance of double voting at some AfD's since I had participated in only 1 that too was not intentional but completely accidental. What happened was: I was improving the article as per the suggestions received at the AfD and I did not know that a user is required to write "comment" other wise it will be counted as a double vote. This error was quickly rectified by another user who explained me about the policy. I hereby submit my heartfelt apologies and I take a vow to never commit even a slightest mistake ever again in my life. I have familiarized myself with Wikipedia guidelines and I am fully equipped to become a valuable contributor. Kindly unblock my account. I shall be highly obliged. Ronnystarboy (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The connection was established beyond doubt. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2020 (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.
Ronnystarboy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried to contribute to Wikipedia but I have been infinitely blocked without even informing me my fault. If there is a case of sockputteting, it needs to be proved that I have been involved in it. I joined on April 22, 2020 and I have been blocked in just 10 days. Did I commit an error by creating 48 genuine edits? If there are other accounts assessed of sockputteting, they should be blocked and not mine. At least I should be provided with one opportunity of being heard. That is my natural right. When I have stated that I am NOT engaged in any kind of policy violation, then why is there no application of WP:GOODFAITH? Ronnystarboy (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Entirely unambiguous. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 13:43, 3 May 2020 (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.