User talk:Wyrnilla

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Colocasia, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Colocasia was changed by Wyrnilla (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.885675 on 2011-06-22T08:57:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Spirion.png

Thanks for uploading File:Spirion.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 07:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

undisclosed paid editing

Hello Wyrnilla. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Spirion, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Wyrnilla. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Wyrnilla|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Vexations (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Spirion

Hello Wyrnilla,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Spirion for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

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

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

Vexations (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Spirion.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spirion.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was attempting to create my first article and I picked a random brand that I am fond of as it is the easiest topic to create a post on. As a first time wiki poster - I made the mistake of not posting it in the talk page first for review I guess. But I did use legitimate sources to style the post exactly as brands do on Wikipedia. If you check my history, I have never before written an entire post, much less for a brand so NO this is not a PAID PROFILE that writes for profit and the only edit this profile has ever made for for a brand is for a local metal concert - and no I am not a paid poster and I resent being categorized and blocked off in such an undemocratic fashion. This is an arbitrary ban. Clearly this is a goof up by a first timer experimenting around. When this post was published and errors started coming in, I made an attempt to make fixes - (but it was a bit confusing) - and then when the article was marked for deletion, I gave up as it was not worth the trouble but seriously, blocking me from editing is a bit too much. I wouldn't give up so easily if I was being paid.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - no answer in 7+ days. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:31, 5 August 2018 (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.

Do you have any connection to Spirion? 331dot (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old Wikipedia profile, the only one that I use to chime in sporadically on topics that I have some knowledge, image or links handy to contribute. So I don't post very frequently either. While I understand there are a lot of people out there abusing Wikipedia, your paranoia has made this so called "open space" pretty closed. You can keep it to yourself. I have a paying job that keeps me busy mad hours and don't need to do paid posts and so I don't have time to answer in 7+ days or defend myself to power mad admins. Great way to encourage freedom of speech.

You have no right to freedom of speech on this privately owned and operated website.. See WP:FREESPEECH. Freedom of speech means that your government cannot jail you for what you say. I've never seen Wikipedia claim to be an "open space". This is a project to build and maintain an encyclopedia. If you decline to answer my question or choose not to be unblocked, that is your choice. It has nothing to do with "power mad admins", but your behavior. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi. The closing of your appeal after 7+ days we just procedural, as we have a long list of open appeals which various admins will spend time checking. I appreciate people are busy in real life, but admins reviewing unblock requests are busy too and we spend a lot of our volunteer time here. Unblock appeals frequently require some discussion, and if you make one then I think it's wise to check in every few days if you can to see if there's been any progress. In the event that you can not do that and the appeal is closed, there's no need for abuse - all you need to do is make a new appeal and in it answer any outstanding questions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]