User talk:EditorF

July 2020[edit]

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:EditorF, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=EditorF|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, I appreciate your concerns regarding my edits and keep wikipedia relevant. This is collaborative community and we are helping each other to learn for betterment of Wikipedia. You seems very dedicated to keep it true with your understandings but I want to let your know that as explained previously I am just here to help Education related articles . My objective is to help youths for choosing right career . I am a new editor and searching new topics which interests me. I am not Paid editor . This I am doing it voluntarily. I hope this helps . EditorF (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ignite India Education[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ignite India Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ignite india education[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ignite india education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EditorF, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

MrOllie (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:EditorF/Ignite India Education[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:EditorF/Ignite India Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ignite India Education (July 12)[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 Eagleash 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 organizations and companies). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This topic does not demonstrate notability and has previously been deleted. There should be no re-submission or re-creation unless the content is significantly changed inline with Wikipedia's 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 User:EditorF/Ignite India Education 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 User:EditorF/Ignite India Education, 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.

Eagleash (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EditorF! 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! Eagleash (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EditorF. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|Your reason here EditorF (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)}[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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here i understood this now and will follow the same please unblock me EditorF (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:19, 13 July 2020 (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.

Unblock[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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here :

I am writing this unblock request because -

Hey Admin You can trust me now because of following reasons -

1. I accept Yes I made mistake, I have committed and vandalized serious policy of Wikipedia. I had used multiple accounts too. I Accept my mistakes. I regret for the same and apologies for the ignorance. Here to make clear i have committed the socket puppeteer. Though please give me a second chance to prove myself under your guidance.In Future I sincerely contribute with the great hope and common sense activity to the community with valid citations and references. I sincerely request you to unblock my IP Address and unblock my accounts. so that i will be using only one account i.e EditorF or upon your suggestion you can decide to which account i need to use for community contributions.

2.I understood that When I was re-editing, but I had no communication with the editors who contributed to the refinement of the article (Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring.). Thanks for the feedback.

3. Once again I apologize for the past mistake. There will be no vandalism on my part, I can tell you with absolute certainty, I give you my word. I would rather attribute my initial inexperience to not communicating with you. You wrote and I didn’t answer, it was a mistake and it won’t happen again. In case of any correction, I will definitely communicate on the review page. I would be very grateful if you could help me, and I will follow the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you so much!!

4. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia as I understood the reason multiple account is not allowed. So I will not use . I also I have read how to write new article will follow the same . Now I understood primary and secondary source of wikipedia . I will make sure that I follow the guidelines of wikipedia.

5. The block is no longer necessary because I understood reason why I have been blocked .

6. I understand that I have been blocked for using multiple accounts which I was not aware not to use .

7. I will not any cause damage or disruption, I will make sure that I make useful contributions to wikipedia .

EditorF (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All you've done so far is spam our website. I suggest you take advantage of the standard offer. Edit another Wikimedia project for six months, and don't engage in sock puppetry on English Wikipedia. If you contribute to another project, such as Wikimedia Commons or Simple English Wikipedia, constructively, it will prove to us that we can trust you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here I am writing this unblock request because - Hey Admin You can trust me now because of following reasons - 1. I accept Yes I made mistake, I have committed and vandalized serious policy of Wikipedia. I had used multiple accounts too. I Accept my mistakes. I regret for the same and apologies for the ignorance. Here to make clear i have committed the socket puppeteer. Though please give me a second chance to prove myself under your guidance.In Future I sincerely contribute with the great hope and common sense activity to the community with valid citations and references. I sincerely request you to unblock my IP Address and unblock my accounts. so that i will be using only one account i.e EditorF or upon your suggestion you can decide to which account i need to use for community contributions. 2.I understood that When I was re-editing, but I had no communication with the editors who contributed to the refinement of the article (Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring.). Thanks for the feedback. 3. Once again I apologize for the past mistake. There will be no vandalism on my part, I can tell you with absolute certainty, I give you my word. I would rather attribute my initial inexperience to not communicating with you. You wrote and I didn’t answer, it was a mistake and it won’t happen again. In case of any correction, I will definitely communicate on the review page. I would be very grateful if you could help me, and I will follow the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you so much!! 4. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia as I understood the reason multiple account is not allowed. So I will not use . I also I have read how to write new article will follow the same . Now I understood primary and secondary source of wikipedia . I will make sure that I follow the guidelines of wikipedia. 5. The block is no longer necessary because I understood reason why I have been blocked . 6. I understand that I have been blocked for using multiple accounts which I was not aware not to use . 7. I will not any cause damage or disruption, I will make sure that I make useful contributions to wikipedia . 23:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)EditorF (talk)

Decline reason:

Repeating the same stuff as above, which was already declined, is not going to get you anywhere, and may lead to your talk page access being revoked. You've been told to take the standard offer - I suggest you take it. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 16:27, 17 July 2020 (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.

Your draft article, Draft:IGNITE INDIA EDUCATION[edit]

Hello, EditorF. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "IGNITE INDIA EDUCATION".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]