Winele8

Your submission at Articles for creation: PELock (February 15)

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

CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Winele8! 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Klippenstein. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ken Klippenstein, you may be blocked from editing. Brycehughes (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The provided quotes are used in the cited reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs)

Your recent editing history at Ken Klippenstein shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Laplorfill (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Hi Winele, thanks for your message and enthusiasm. I wanted to drop you a note and suggest that you take some time away from the Ken Klippenstein article. You are misunderstanding a lot of how Wikipedia works and if you don't take a step back, a block is likely. That's not a threat, just my assessment as an administrator who has been on Wikipedia for over 5 years. We are written from a neutral point of view and regardless of how you feel about a subject, using value-laden terms like "troll" requires multiple, high-quality sources. Many editors do not view Business Insider as a reliable source, so it is not acceptable for such a non-neutral characterization. We are not a tabloid; let the facts do the talking themselves. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:PELock

Hello, Winele8. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:PELock, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello Winele8. 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:Winele8. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Winele8|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. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Winele8, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Winele8|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY

Please stop restoring a list of non-nototable software projects. Wikipedia is not a directory for github projects. Unless the project is notable enough to have a standalone article or third-party reliable sources mention it, it shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Final warning before block

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Any further disruptive editing or personal attacks will result in an indefinite block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Junk sources and advertising

Social media sites such as quora.com and reddit.com are not acceptable sources. And adding links to your software on the chrome web store is straight up link spam. - MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE; ongoing promotion after first block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)