User talk:Awdko00

Welcome!

Hello, Awdko00, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Easybook, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GSK (t • c) 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Easybook

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 Easybook, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be 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 or person 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/Business 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. GSK (t • c) 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easybook Review

Review

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Easybook was deleted under section G11, I need review for the content, it has been actively edited to be as neutral and encyclopedic possible .

My sandbox

Awdko00 (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To submit your draft for review, click the submit button or type {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and click save. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 04:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Easybook

Hello Awdko00,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Easybook for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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. Kavdiamanju (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Easybook (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 Draft:Easybook and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Awdko00, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Baligema (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 30 July 2015 (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).

Awdko00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppetry. This is a false report.

Decline reason:

This appears not to be the case. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:00, 21 October 2016 (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.

Please explain why it is false. Also, you've been writing a lot of adverts here, not any different from the other accounts. Please provide some valid reasoning. —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 21 October 2016 (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).

Awdko00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea, my article about easybook is been deleted because it looks more like an advert, that is fair, I am not even submitting anymore review but I seriously think Easybook deserve a place in Wiki. Anyone who have travel in Malaysia and Singapore will know, I need someone who can support me within wiki. And for this Anthony Bradbery I have no idea who he is, at what ground is wiki associate me with this account? Let me know and I will try clarify myself, I am using a share office network with alot of other company, so this might be associated but i can prove myself with other set of home ip to disassociate myself with this anthony brabery.

Decline reason:

If we have to deal with dozens of technically indistinguishable spammer accounts, we don't really care if it's one person or a concerted effort. Huon (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2016 (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.

User:Anthony Bradbury is the admin who declined your previous unblock request - that's just his signature. This account is blocked as a sock of User:Baligema. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boing! said Zebedee: Noting the strange assumption of association, together with two different miss-spellings of my name, I had assumed, given that the account is a sockpuppet, that this was a deliberate attempt to appear wikipedically naiive. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you're probably right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I am upset I don't check my grammar, it is my 3rd or 4th language. Awdko00 (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2016 (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).

Awdko00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, I do not mean Anthony Bradbury.Due to his name is being mark red and I assume the ban due to association with that account. I need to clarify one last thing, Baligema is not associated with me, please let me know what kind of association is made for me and Baligema account. Am I not proving myself human enough? If there are massive spammer deletion I would assume you have multiple false positive deletion and this is one of them. Let me know if anything I can do to clear this up.

Decline reason:

Whether or not you are associated with other blocked accounts, you are clearly here for the sole purpose of using Wikipedia to advertise, so unblocking you would not benefit the project. Since your unblock requests are achieving nothing but wasting administrators' time which could be more usefully spent on other tasks, your talk page access will be removed. (Incidentally, I also note that your article editing shows a vastly higher level of competence at English than your talk page editing, indicating that you are actually using someone else's writing and presenting it as your own.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2016 (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.