User talk:Datu likha

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Datu likha. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Maharlika Nation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the case being dismissed by the National Prosecution Service. A source with a clearer document would be preferable, something that is not hosted on some social media site. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aspieant editor on wikipedia I appreciate your concern I will comply to all terms of wikipedia I am hoping to continue serve legit documents, and my articles were conducted throughly in accordance with the law, and also Please simplify how to upload documents on wikipedia for a clearer document thank you Datu likha (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are by chance you are indeed someone from the group (can't really say), the most foolproof way is to reach out to established media outlets to clear the groups' name. Then whatever they publish could be used as a citation or the government office in question could have already published in in the net. I cannot read the relevant details (ie. case number) to find it myself. Regardless I try to remain neutral (WP:NPOV) by explicitly stating allegations are allegations. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures[edit]

Wikipedia has a lot of rules about what kind of information can be published in articles. See WP:5P for an overview with links to more details. The fundamental point is that articles must be based on reliable sources that can be checked by other editors. That means it is not possible to add text based on knowledge or belief concerning a topic—if other editors cannot verify the text, it will be removed as original research. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse or you can reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Repeating disputed edits is edit warring and will result in a block. Disagreements must be settled by discussion on the article talk page. See WP:DR. Facebook is not a reliable source and must not be used as a reference. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Datu likha: I have had to prevent you from editing articles. You can discuss disagreements with other editors at the appropriate article talk page. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariboneagle927 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

unblock my account as I will prove that my edit was true and correct, I will cite more reliable source of information Datu likha (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked from Article space for failing to communicate with other editors, but do not discuss that in this request. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2023 (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.