Treianlatri
Welcome!
edit
|
A page you started (Daniel Wallock) has been reviewed!
editThanks for creating Daniel Wallock, Treianlatri!
Wikipedia editor Robertgombos just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Nice refs!
To reply, leave a comment on Robertgombos's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Robertgombos (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Treianlatri (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Kathleen Quigly
editHey, I'm a little confused as to why you tagged Kathleen Quigly as needing refimprove? All the paragraphs are cited, primarily from the Dictionary of Irish Biography? Thanks, Smirkybec (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. The article is entirely referenced from a single source except for the last paragraph. It will be better if the source is accessible online or if you could improve it with more sources. Regards, --Treianlatri (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding what that maintenance tag means, it is for articles that are not sourced or referenced which this is. You can argue it could be improved with more citations, including online ones, but that is a different matter. Smirkybec (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Daniel Wallock for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Wallock 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/Daniel Wallock 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. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Harvest Exchange for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harvest Exchange 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/Harvest Exchange 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. scope_creep (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
August 2019
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Treianlatri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked as SPAM/advertising only account which is not true. I have several other contributions and my last edit was to move the Draft:Anjana_Reddy to WP:MAINSPACE. I also disclosed my COI on the article's talk page[1]. The article in question is not advertising and I genuinely believe it meets the notability guidelines. I think Wikipedia editors should not have any prejudice against paid edits or editors. Please, unblock me because I do not make spam edits only or use my editing rights for advertising purpose. I always disclose whenever I have a COI and I will always make constructive edits if I am unblocked. I am not here solely for spamming. I am aware of Wikipedia's Goals and I will abide by WP:COPO. Treianlatri (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree that "SPAM/advertising only account" was an exaggeration. However, the fact remains that you have edited in ways which are clearly promotional and which you are apparently unable to see as promotional, which casts doubt on your likelihood of avoiding doing the same again. Also, it is true that "paid editing" is tolerated provided it is kept within certain bounds, but you appear to interpret that as meaning that there are no problems with creating articles because businesses pay you to do so in order to use Wikipedia to publicise themselves, which is not the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2019 (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.
- Were you connected to, or were paid for the other articles you created (Blueground, Harvest Exchange, Daniel Wallock)? MER-C 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was paid for Blueground only. I was not aware of the paid disclosure policy at that time. I was not paid for Harvest Exchange or Daniel Wallock. Treianlatri (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Draft:Anjana_Reddy looks very much like paid-editing to me. You're claiming otherwise? OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, you are right. Please, see my disclosure[2]. Treianlatri (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MER-C: could you please re-consider your block? I promise you won't find my edits as advertising. Treianlatri (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your clients hired you create articles about themselves, which is promotional irrespective of content. Wikipedia readers expect reliable, independent, encyclopedic information. Native advertising and sponsored content are none of those things. MER-C 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I got your point but there are many noteworthy topics for which no pages have been created yet. Please, understand that Paid editing is permissible in Wikipedia. There are many individuals who meet the notability criteria but either do not familiar with the Wikipedia or don't have time or expertise to request an article on them. This is why I put COI disclosure to make sure it goes through a review. If you think the page I created doesn't meet the notability criteria or a blatant advertising then I will be happy to nominate it for AFD myself, if I am unblocked. Treianlatri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your clients hired you create articles about themselves, which is promotional irrespective of content. Wikipedia readers expect reliable, independent, encyclopedic information. Native advertising and sponsored content are none of those things. MER-C 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MER-C: could you please re-consider your block? I promise you won't find my edits as advertising. Treianlatri (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, you are right. Please, see my disclosure[2]. Treianlatri (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Draft:Anjana_Reddy looks very much like paid-editing to me. You're claiming otherwise? OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was paid for Blueground only. I was not aware of the paid disclosure policy at that time. I was not paid for Harvest Exchange or Daniel Wallock. Treianlatri (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Treianlatri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do understood that some of the edits were promotional. There is no strict written rules for editing perspectives. This is why dispute resolution notice boards are there. A sentence may seem promotional to you but not to someone else. This can be resolved by a consensus but not by blocking. I humbly request you to re-consider my appeal as I still believe I should be given a second chance. Thank you.Treianlatri (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (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. -- Dlohcierekim 11:02, 21 August 2019 (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.
Treianlatri (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked as "SPAM/advertising only account" which is not entirely true. I have made constructive edits as well. I will not make any spam/advertising/promotional edits or cause any disruption through my edits. Please, unblock me so I can contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you.Treianlatri (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2019 (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.
- @JJMC89: for how long? I have been waiting since 2 September 2019! Treianlatri (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The article Blueground has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Paid promotional spam article. No evidence of notability, just a REFBOMB of churnalism. WP:BEFORE shows only similar promotional churnalism. Should have been speedied at the time.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)