User talk:ContentNerd

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ContentNerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Nemo 06:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nemo bis. I would surely let you know if I need your help. ContentNerd (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OAbot ucpress.edu[edit]

OAbot links you added to ucpress.edu don't seem to be free to read full text. See e.g. Asian Survey in 6th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea or 1991 Bangladeshi presidential election and Film Quarterly in Andrew Noren. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there's no point adding links to papers that are already accessible via their DOI links ... you need to check before adding, or it's just a duplicate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chiswick Chap, I am not getting what you want to say. Can you explain? ContentNerd (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just used a bot, I believe, to add links to Yoga as exercise (and probably other articles too). However the links you added were redundant to links already present in those very same citations, because the DOI link can be clicked on to navigate automatically to the same paper you linked to. I therefore undid your additions, and wanted to notify you to check before doing the same thing again, many times over, on other articles. Adding a link is only worth it when there's a free and non-copyright link to be added and it ISN'T already reachable from the DOI link if one is present. Very often this isn't true: either neither link gives the full text, or both do.

If this still seems all Greek to you, please try following the link from an existing citation, and see if it goes to the same place that your new link would do. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chiskwick Chap, thanks for your help. ContentNerd (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the DOI link and find that there is free access, you should make sure the CS1 citation templates includes doi-access=free, then choose reject in OAbot. I've just make that change to one of your previous edits here: [1]. --Bsherr (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Free to access"?[edit]

I see Chiswick Chap, above, is ahead of me. I don't think the links you've added to the Elgar and Ravel articles are helpful to readers, as they lead to sites where a subscription is needed to let one see the text. When we cite links to such sites it is customary to add the (subscription required) tag. I think it would be better to remove the recently added links because they clutter up the references without offering the reader any benefit. If they did indeed offer readers free access to the cited texts it would, of course be quite another matter. Regards, Tim riley talk 15:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were maybe 50 ucpress.edu links in the OAbot queue, I've removed them to reduce the chance of such errors happening again. I've also reported the issue upstream. Nemo 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thank you, Nemo. Tim riley talk 18:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ContentNerd, I think OAbot gets confused because those websites give a first page preview PDF of the article. First make sure the link isn't redundant to the DOI link. If the DOI link is missing, add it from the website OAbot found. If the link is redundant, don't add it, but if it is, add it, and then, if the citation is a CS1 template, add url-access=subscription. --Bsherr (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Edward Elgar, for example, the DOI was missing, and the website identified by OAbot had the DOI, so we can add the DOI to the CS1 citation, even though it doesn't provide free access. See this diff: [2]. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bsherr for your suggestion ContentNerd (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I find so inspiring about Wikipedia – pooling knowledge and doing our collective best to make things as good as we can for the reader. Thank you ContentNerd, Bsherr, Nemo and, frequent and splendid colleague Chiswick Chap Tim riley talk 20:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, I'm glad the team is on the case to make it all work better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone including Chiswick Chap, Tim riley, Bsherr and Nemo bis for your kind suggestions. OAbot is somewhat new to me. Do tell me if I make a mistake in the future. ContentNerd (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Moodie (October 23)[edit]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Ken Moodie 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:Ken Moodie, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

Hug^syrup 14:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ContentNerd! 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! Hug^syrup 14:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parapet (Software) (November 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Parapet (Software) 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:Parapet (Software), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Disco Funk Spinner (November 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources.

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:Disco Funk Spinner 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:Disco Funk Spinner, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parapet (Software) (November 28)[edit]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia is not PR: WP:IBA.

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:Parapet (Software) 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:Parapet (Software), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

— Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parapet (Software) (November 28)[edit]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

WP:IBA issue was not addressed. Only one sentence was slightly reworded, which did not change its promotional tone at all.

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:Parapet (Software) 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:Parapet (Software), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

— Sagotreespirit (^talk) 20:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romi Aboulafia moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Romi Aboulafia, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Romi Aboulafia (December 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by David.moreno72 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Romi Aboulafia 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:Romi Aboulafia, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

David.moreno72 11:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paid-editing disclosure[edit]

I saw that you disclosed on your user page that you are a paid editor. Thank you for your openness, but the disclosure is incomplete. See WP:PAID: You also need to disclose employer and client. I rather don't think Upwork technically is your employer, and it certainly is not the client you are hired to write about. You "must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week." Huon (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Moodie (December 13)[edit]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Ken Moodie 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:Ken Moodie, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parapet (Software) (December 13)[edit]

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:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

none of the changes address the reviews in prior reviews. Additionally you must disclose each subject who has hired you.

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:Parapet (Software) 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:Parapet (Software), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. You have been given instruction several times on how to appropriately disclose your status as a paid editor. You must disclose who the client is. You must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week. You should not edit until this is addressed. Praxidicae (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ Praxidicae, I have disclosed the information on my user page. Kindly check the same and revert if it needs correction.

@ContentNerd: you still have to complete this part: You must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week. Praxidicae (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ Praxidicae, these users don't have a user page as it is I who created their Wikipedia pages and I have disclosed on my user page (with client information) that I have been paid via Upwork to create those pages.

Upwork is the venue by which you are paid, it is not who pays you and you haven't complied with the part I highlighted above. Praxidicae (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ Praxidicae, I have disclosed on my user page about the Wikipedia pages that I created in exchange of money with client information (person who requested me to create a Wikipedia page). In some cases, the client is the same person whose page I had created and in some cases, the client is a person known to the client.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Moodie (December 16)[edit]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No significant changes to address the previous decline and creator has still failed to properly disclose their status as a paid editor (specifically their client.)

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:Ken Moodie 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:Ken Moodie, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Moodie (February 10)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Ken Moodie 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:Ken Moodie, 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, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of AmTab Manufacturing Corporation[edit]

Hello ContentNerd,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged AmTab Manufacturing Corporation for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Moodie (February 28)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Resubmitted with zero improvement.

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:Ken Moodie 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:Ken Moodie, 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, 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

∐== March 2020 ==

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bilby (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bilby, I have received a message from Wikipedia stating that my account has been blocked indefinitely and the reason given is sock puppetry. When I read about it, I found that it means using multiple Wikipedia accounts on the same computer with same IP. This can be true as my computer is used by different users but I have one only one Wikipedia account with user name ContentNerd. I assure you that I won't repeat this mistake in the future. To avoid this mistake I have made this computer as my personal computer so it won't be used by other users anymore. So kindly remove the block on my account so that I can again start contributing to Wikipedia. Regards ContentNerd (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC) ContentNerd[reply]

Sorry, but the issue wasn't the IP address. It is clear that a few days after your old User:Yaarann account was blocked that this account was created to contine with paid editing. It is a plus that you disclosed at least some of the paid editing you engaged in here, but while the original account remains blocked you cannot just start a new one. - Bilby (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bilby, The account you are talking about had been used by someone else so you can delete the same if it is required. If it is not the solution, then do tell me what I need to do to unblock my block.

To be unblocked, you will need to ask for an unblock on your original account. You can request an unblock here, but you will need to convince the administrator that you are not behind both accounts, and the evidence very strongly speaks otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bilby, this is my original account. I am not behind both accounts you are talking about. I own only ContentNerd, which is my original account. The other account you are talking about is not mine, but he does the same job like me, which is editing Wikipedia. The account Yaarann, which you have accused me of Sock Puppetry is used by someone else who uses my computer. I request you to unblock my account and assure you that Yaarann won't use my computer for editing in the future.

As mentioned, this is not based on the IP address. It is clear that you have been running two accounts, and created this one to continue to engage in paid editing just days after the Yaarann account as blocked. That said, if you wish to appeal the block you can follow the instructions provided above, although I believe the evidence to be very strong. - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bilby, I have disclosed on the Yaarann account that I have been using both the accounts. So I request you to delete the Yaarann account and unblock ContentNerd so that I can again start contributing to Wikipedia. Hello @Bilby, Kindly unblock my ContentNerd account as I have stated on both Wikipedia accounts that I have been behind them and I request you to delete the Yaarann account.

Sorry, but no. If nothing else, this is now a checkuser block, with two alternative accounts rather than the one, so I am not permitted to unblock the account directly. You might want to consider the standard offer, which may or may not apply to your account. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby, I have completed the waiting period of six months without editing Wikipedia. Kindly unblock one of Wikipedia accounts and delete the other one. Give me the second chance so that I can again contribute to Wikipedia. @Bilby, Please unblock my Wikipedia account as I have completed the required six months without zero edits time period. If it is not the solution, please tell me how can I unblock my Wikipedia account.

Nomination of Abhay Nevagi for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abhay Nevagi 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/Abhay Nevagi 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. The9Man | (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Account Unblock[edit]

Hello @Bilby, I have waited for over a year to get my Wikipedia account unblock as you told that it will be unblocked after six months if you don't make any change for six months. I have accepted that the account associated with Sockpuppet is mine and you could delete the previous account with user name as Yaarann. Please provide me a solution.

Unblock Wikipedia Account[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been waiting the block to be removed from my profile so that I can restart contributing to Wikipedia. I am waiting since my Wikipedia account has been blocked. If this is not the solution, do tell me what to do to unblock my Wikipedia account.

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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello @Yamla, I have been blocked for sock puppet for using two accounts. And I have admitted that both accounts are mine. And I have been told that you to wait for six months without edit. And I have waited for over 1.5 years for my Wikipedia account to be unblocked. I request you to unblock one of my Wikipedia accounts and delete the other one. ContentNerd (talk)

Unblock Wikipedia Account[edit]

Hello @Bilby, I have admitted that I have been behind the two Wikipedia accounts and I have waited for over one and half years to get my Wikipedia account unblocked. I created the second Wikipedia account because my first account i.e. Yaarann has been blocked and I don't know how to unblock at that time and that's why I created another Wikipedia account. Later on when my second Wikipedia account i.e. ContentNerd has been blocked, then I realized that it is permitted and now I assure you that I won't do this again. So, kindly unblock my ContentNerd Wikipedia account. ContentNerd (talk)ContentNerd