User talk:Iamthecreativeeditor

Welcome!

Hello, Iamthecreativeeditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Atul Kumar Sharma (Producer), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Owlf 📪 12:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Atul Kumar Sharma (Producer)

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 Atul Kumar Sharma (Producer), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Owlf 📪 12:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the references submitted are genuine and backed up with news links and also I would request you to kindly just don't judge the article so soon for speedy deletion. This is a genuine article, a few more supporting news links will be added by tomorrow, give a week's time it will be a proper one. Instead of speedy deletion, you can mark it as under maintenance or Multiple issue's Tag, It's a genuine request. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a promotional article, Check all the works and information submitted, It's nothing regarding promotions. without checking it's unfair to just put a deletion tag. It takes time to create an article, as an editor I know what a genuine contribution is to Wikipedia.

Remove the deletion tag and give it time to also get it reviewed by other editors. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Atul Kumar Sharma (Producer)

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 Atul Kumar Sharma (Producer), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar Sharma. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a promotional article, Check all the works and information submitted, It's nothing regarding promotions. without checking it's unfair to just put a deletion tag. It takes time to create an article, as an editor I know what a genuine contribution is to Wikipedia. Remove the deletion tag and give it time to also get it reviewed by other editors. All the references submitted are genuine and backed up with news links and also I would request you to kindly just don't judge the article so soon for speedy deletion. This is a genuine article, a few more supporting news links will be added by tomorrow, give a week's time it will be a proper one. Instead of speedy deletion, you can mark it as under maintenance or Multiple issue's Tag, It's a genuine request. Don't delete this page, This is a genuine article. It needs citations, but can't be put into a speedy deletion tag. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Atul Kumar Sharma (Producer)

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 Atul Kumar Sharma (Producer), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)earlier this article was deleted because of the fewer references, this time the article has been backed up by 12 genuine new news articles.[reply]

Block

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on one or more other accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account. JBW (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't block the account, I assure you I won't create the article for Atul Kumar Sharma anymore, I didn't have any idea that my account will be blocked, as I was paid to edit that article. As an Editor I have made genuine contributions to Wikipedia by creating some genuine articles, Please don't block my account. I am already creating a few more genuine articles for Indian Film actors which is in progress, I have to submit those. Kindly unblock. Give the last chance, if this happens again you can direct block. I won't justify. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Kindly don't block the account, I assure you I won't create the article for Atul Kumar Sharma anymore, I didn't have any idea that my account will be blocked, as I was paid to edit that article. As an Editor I have made genuine contributions to Wikipedia by creating some genuine articles, Please don't block my account. I am already creating a few more genuine articles for Indian Film actors which is in progress, I have to submit those. Kindly unblock. Give the last chance, if this happens again you can direct block. I won't justify.

Decline reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Give me one last chance, kindly unblock. As a new editor, I am learning a lot of stuff. I assure you this won't happen. No more disruptive edits. I came on Wikipedia for genuine contributions and I am gonna stick to it. I am currently creating a few articles for Indian Film Actors and Director. Kindly don't block me at this stage. I assure you I will only make productive contributions further. If you see any problems from my side next, you can immediately block me. But for this time kindly unblock.

Decline reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

One last chance, Kindly unblock

Decline reason:

Please make one unblock request with your final answer, like it's a game show from the 1990s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

What's the problem in unblocking for once? If you being the administrator has the power to block everything then you can do it again also, unblocking it for once won't make a difference. As I said I have few genuine contributions lined up for Wikipedia, as it is a free platform and I want to make genuine contributions in future, Whatever disruptive change or creation I tried to do was my mistake. I am already creating 2 articles more for Indian Film Actors, which I would like to submit which are already in process. I won't repeat any vandalism. You being of high authority can block me for a lifetime right, then if I do any mistakes again then block me for a lifetime. But at least if I am requesting then unblock it for once. And yes it's not a game, or as I am getting paid for making contributions, I am not getting paid for many articles, I am just making my humble contributions to Wikipedia. I just wanna make myself a Better Wikipedia editor, Still in the learning phase. So Understand it for once. I get it that vandalism had no escape, I will be blocked. I get it. this was my learning. Won't happen again.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. You will need to request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 11:37, 24 May 2022 (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.

I am willing to consider unblocking. However, before doing so, I would like you to answer the following questions. Exactly what accounts have you used? Has any more of your editing been paid for? If so, which editing, and who has paid you? You say you had no idea your account had been blocked, but hadn't you already had one or more other accounts blocked? Also, it will help if you explain why you prefer to have this account unblocked rather than your original account. JBW (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing all but one of your open unblock requests. Having more than one open at a time serves no useful purpose, and creates more work for an administrator to close each of them one by one, unless they are all just removed. JBW (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts I have used are Atul Sharma,Aqzswxdecfrvgtb,ATULKUMARSHARMA91,iamalonetiger,iamthecreativeeditor and all are blocked currently, I request you to unblock this current account iamthecreativeeditor one, I will be using this account only for genuine contributions from now on and won't create any new or other accounts. JBW

Kindly unblock my account iamthecreativeeditor. I have a few genuine articles lined up to be published for the Indian actors. JBW

Can you check the exact names of those accounts? Neither Atul Sharma nor ATULKUMARSHARMA91 exists. JBW (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW they have several cu blocked accounts. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That are the only names, I have mentioned that are the correct names. The accounts are blocked plus IP addresses are also blocked. User:Drmies blocked the IP and disabled the account ATULKUMARSHARMA91.

and for Atul Sharma, I guess the account doesn't exist, I checked now for myself. Maybe I have deleted or the same may be blocked by someone with the IP.

Kindly unblock my current account iamthecreativeeditor, this is the only account I will be using further for the rest of the contributions, the rest of the other accounts are blocked. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two accounts that I mentioned don't exist, and never have. That is not at all the same as existing but being blocked. There are several more accounts that look as though they are you, but I was willing to consider the possibility that they aren't, and to consider unblocking as a possibility if further investigation made that seemm likely. However, such investigation would need to start from a list of all the accounts that are yours, so we could check the others and rule them out. Unfortunately, you have failed to provide a full list of your accounts. Presumably the two usernames you gave that don't exist are mistakes for similar names that you have misremembered, but since you haven't taken the opportunity to correct them I can't go ahead with getting the checking that I had planned for. The unblock request remains open, and any other administrator is free to review it and deal with it as they think fit, but in my experience most of the administrators who regularly review unblock requests are less willing to unblock in this kind of situation than I am. Therefore my expectation is that you stand very little chance of being unblocked unless you can manage to come up with correct names for the unknown accounts. If you can't then the best suggestion I can offer is to wait until at least six months since the last time you made any edits at all, apart from talk page edits relating to unblock requests, and then post another unblock request. JBW (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

are you kidding me? Do you think you are the gods of Wikipedia? People are willing to contribute to Wikipedia after learning how to create articles and now as I have learnt and got to know the do's and don't you say wait for 6 months? Wikipedia is a free platform for the free contribution of notable people. I should be allowed to contribute by creating articles for notable people if I want to. You should not just block me. I get it that you or any wikipedia administrator felt offensive and blocked me many times from creating different accounts and blocked me for disruptive edits. But did I do any disruptive edits to any else's profile on Wikipedia? I was just creating a personal profile for someone and trying to understand how and what changes are needed after it gets live and what else is needed, what all references news links are genuine and what all are not considered genuine. I never did any disruptive changes to any other articles, instead of through this account iamthecreativeeditor I did genuine contributions, and I wanted to continue that. I get it there is no escape from fake accounts or disruptive changes or recreating articles again and again if they don't meet Wikipedia guidelines. I get it. It's easy for administrators like you to block IPs and accounts anytime, so fine do it once again and if I do any disruptive edits or uploads. Why are you making it so difficult? Common this a free platform, for free contributions, learning to create Wikipedia articles is not easy and if I have learnt it. Was it for a waste? Whatever accounts I mentioned are the accounts I used before and I was being honest, and you are pretending to be a god for Wikipedia? Why would I plead so much for unblocking? if I know I will be blocked again if I do the same mistake again? If I had any wrong intentions I would have done some other way, I would have not been pleading to you to unblock this account. Why don't you get this simple thing? As I mentioned before that through this account I have made more edits and genuine contributions so I want to continue this account. I don't bother what accounts I created earlier because all are blocked and honestly won't be using that again anyways. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put quite a bit of time into looking into the history, and giving you an opportunity to show us that you are willing to be straightforward about your other accounts, in the hope that I could justify unblocking you. It would have been much easier to have just walked away and forgotten about you, but I preferred to try to help. In the presence of so many accounts that look as though they are you, it would have been so easy to just assume they were, but I didn't make any assumptions, and tried to give you a chance. The thanks I get for giving up my time and putting in some effort to try to give you a chance is the diatribe above. As I have already indicated above, other administrators are less likely than me to consider unblocking, so you've chosen to throw away the best chance you had. Fine. That's your choice. Goodbye. JBW (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now you take it personally. Just because I said those words above? What wrong did I say? You are acting like the creators of Wikipedia. You are here for genuine contributions and to stop people from being disruptive and accounts I get that. You asked for all the accounts I created I gave you the details, and I was honest about it. Still, you are not believing just because you feel I have more accounts and they look like me? But can't you see, if I had other accounts then what's the reason to hide them and not share them with you? if I am fighting for this account? I don't know what the even point of asking about all the accounts I created. I am asking for this account to unblock. Am I asking to unblock all the accounts? or putting unblock requests from various accounts? No right. This is the only account from which I am asking to unblock that to only for this account. I don't even know the point of these discussions. If you unblock this account I will use it for genuine contributions if not someone will again block right. So what is the problem? Do you think even after so much pleading for unblock requests if you unblock I would be stupid to do something wrong again? Are you not just taking it personally and making it sound that you will not because you don't want to. Not because I should be unblocked or not. Do you think I would be wasting so much time pleading with you just because I will be doing wrong just after you unblock? This account means to me as I was about to do genuine Article contributions which are lined up for a few Indian Actors. I don't know why can't you understand. Block is something you can do it again also, it's not that if you unblock you cant block again. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the message above was going to be my last contribution here, but I have found one more thing which may help to locate one of the missing accounts. Of the accounts which you have correctly named the oldest is Aqzswxdecfrvgtb. Was that your first account? If not, then which one was? JBW (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Aqzswxdecfrvgtb was the first account Maybe I really don't remember. As accounts are saved in my login. I found whatever accounts in my login I already mentioned. Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

That are the only names, I have mentioned that are the correct names. The accounts are blocked plus IP addresses are also blocked. User:Drmies blocked the IP and disabled the account ATULKUMARSHARMA91 and for Atul Sharma, I guess the account doesn't exist, I checked now for myself. Maybe I have deleted or the same may be blocked by someone with the IP. Kindly unblock my current account iamthecreativeeditor, this is the only account I will be using further for the rest of the contributions, the rest of the other accounts are blocked. Now Unblock please, I have to submit an article for an Indian Actor. Don't stop me from doing contributions, Now I have learnt article creation and in future, there will not be any disruptive changes or additions.JBW Iamthecreativeeditor (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your response below, I'm declining your appeal. The standard offer is available to you.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:24, 27 May 2022 (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.

You need to realize that you have no inherent right to edit Wikipedia. It is a private website and editors who violate our policies, which you have done, are blocked for good reason. I need you to explain "I have to submit an article for an Indian Actor" from your appeal above. What do you mean by "have to"?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It means submit it for review. What it is called then? Is it not called the Submission of an article? If I am making a contribution by creating an article then I need to submit it for review. Also, I have to because I have already spent my hours drafting that article. So I have to. I sourced out genuine references and then drafted the article, it took time, it was not like a minutes job. That's why I said I have to because an effort was made for it. You just need to see the wrong side, you feel everyone is here to just violate the guideless purposefully all the time. And who said I have no right to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself says it's a free platform, Anyone can do genuine contributions to Wikipedia. I get it I have violated the rules before, but initially, I was not aware of many guidelines and I ended up getting blocked. But I learnt that way. If it would have been a private website, it would never be asked to join Wikipedia by creating an account. You all think you have owed Wikipedia. Just because you are administrators and you see all new editors as fraud only. I am done pleading with you, keep your administration powers with you. I am done. You think all people are fools. Then good for you all.

If I had bad intentions, I would have done away round to enter and edit Wikipedia but didn't do it, I genuinely asked for unblocking for this account, so that I can do genuine contributions. Anyways no need to make you guys understand. Thank you for giving your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthecreativeeditor (talk • contribs)

Concern regarding Draft:Modern Love: Mumbai ( Tv series )

Hello, Iamthecreativeeditor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Modern Love: Mumbai ( Tv series ), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Modern Love: Mumbai ( Tv series )

Hello, Iamthecreativeeditor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Modern Love: Mumbai".

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. 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!} 00:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]