User talk:Editorialadvisoryaccount
July 2018[edit]
Hello, Editorialadvisoryaccount, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Jasleen Ahluwalia (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. You appear to have started editing immediately after some socks of this account were blocked. So far, you have mostly removed speedy tags on an article created by one of those socks. Please do not do so again or you may fall foul of the 3 revert rule and get blocked yourself. noq (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Editorialadvisoryaccount (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I Editorialadvisoryaccount I am a genuine account and I am not in anyway linked to any other user, I am happy to verify this in any manner that wikipedia wishes. Further-more I do understand the need for this editor to patrol new editors but in this case threatening a new users with what is a baseless accusation and then deleting the page is not helpful and very upsetting it in my view works against encouraging new users like me to start editing on wikipedia - something that this platform needs and requires to ensure the unbiased integrity of wikipedia This Article shows significant media coverage and is in my view it should not be deleted, I would like the opportunity to develop this article further My behavioural nature is because I am being unfairly targeted with circumstantial evidence by the editer called NOC none of the accusations happen to Be correct. Please unblock my account so I can set about undoing the harm that has been caused to this page so I can get it un-deleated. what I wish to do is help notable independent pages where some kind of charity act has been made actually get the credit that they deserve as the whole media and corporate structure is attempting to limit exposure to those who are linked to an already established corporate structure. I feel I have a duty to undo the damage I have inadvertently caused to the article deleted. I appeal for you to help me in this endeavour for these reasons.
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. - TNT 💖 12:40, 14 July 2018 (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.
Editorialadvisoryaccount (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am appealing this as My only intention is and has been to make useful contributions to wikipedia. I would like to say again I do not have multiple accounts I am a new genuine user and as such I request unblocking I understand why there is behavioural evidence to suggest the accusation but it is not valid in this case. I would like to know how I can prove that I am a genuine user as it can not be fair for the blocking of genuine users that unfortunately through no fault of there own get targeted by an established editor who has behavioural evidence might apply. Editorialadvisoryaccount I am a genuine account and I am not in anyway linked to any other user, I am happy to verify this in any manner that wikipedia wishes. Further-more I do understand the need for this editor to patrol new editors but in this case threatening a new users with what is a baseless accusation and then deleting the page is not helpful and very upsetting it in my view works against encouraging new users like me to start editing on wikipedia - something that this platform needs and requires to ensure the unbiased integrity of wikipedia This Article shows significant media coverage and is in my view it should not be deleted. I would like the opportunity to develop this article further My behavioural nature is because I am being unfairly targeted with circumstantial evidence by the editer called NOC none of the accusations happen to Be correct. Please unblock my account so I can set about undoing the harm that has been caused to this page so I can get it un-deleated. what I wish to do is help wikipedia be up to date with notable independent People. I feel I have a duty to undo the damage I have inadvertently caused to wikipedia by the article deleted. Editorialadvisoryaccount (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:DUCK block evasion or meatpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:59, 14 July 2018 (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.
- Please stop creating duplicate unblock requests - just wait for the one above to be reviewed. Thank you - TNT 💖 13:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Talk page access revoked[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Editorialadvisoryaccount (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22059 was submitted on Jul 14, 2018 15:10:33. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Editorialadvisoryaccount (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22060 was submitted on Jul 14, 2018 16:41:37. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Editorialadvisoryaccount (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22083 was submitted on Jul 16, 2018 12:27:04. This review is now closed.