User talk:Shelikesme

This is Shelikesme's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 6)

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

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 people). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

nothing here to suggest they pass WP:GNG.

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:Shelikesme/sandbox 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:Shelikesme/sandbox, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shelikesme! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Theroadislong, I've edited that article now and added more references do check out. Shelikesme (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marina Bondarko (September 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HitroMilanese 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 people). 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 does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Notability has not been demonstrated as required. The draft is not written in a formal tone either.

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:Marina Bondarko 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 Draft:Marina Bondarko, 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.

Hitro talk 07:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marina Bondarko (September 8)

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

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.

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.

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:Marina Bondarko 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 Draft:Marina Bondarko, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marina Bondarko (September 10)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Marina Bondarko 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 Draft:Marina Bondarko, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello Shelikesme. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Shelikesme. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shelikesme|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't took any sort of money, from anyone,I'm new to Wikipedia I found this topic because it does not exist on wikipedia, so I'm trying my best to make this topic get published on Wikipedia, as far my writing skills are concerned, Im trying it to make it in encyclopediac tone,I need time to improve my writing skills in neutral way Shelikesme (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain how this is your own work then? Praxidicae (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took her photograph, but I didn't took any money from her. That was a random photo in a cafe Shelikesme (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She even don't know who I am. Shelikesme (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you walked up to some random, mostly unknown person, took a professional photo of her and she hasn't a clue who you are? Or how about this one which is clearly a different time/date as well. Praxidicae (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brother im street photographer, i found her, she keeps visiting places I have only this 2 pics of her. This Corona period is boring so I started this Wikipedia page a thought to write about her. Personally I don't know her. Shelikesme (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not your "brother" second, you're either lying or trolling. How is it that you took a photo of her in Belarus, in a Cafe, and you don't know her, yet also took a photo of her in South Korea, 7,443 km from each other, which you've very unambiguously argued that you physically took said photo? Praxidicae (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That South Korea picture was uploaded from her instagram account. It got blocked Shelikesme (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said you took that photo not once but twice. So did you take the photo? Praxidicae (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took 2 photos, 1)In cafe 2)In Belarus

Other was from her instagram account, eventually they got blocked bcz they already on internet. Shelikesme (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain my question. You stated that it was your own artwork, taken in South Korea. Did you take that photo, yes or no? Praxidicae (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's was her instagram photo I took screenshot of it and it got blocked. It's obvious it should get blocked because it's instagram photo. Shelikesme (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ask for money from her? To write this article? Shelikesme (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as sockpuppet of User:Satyacyclopedia, article salted

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You agreed here not to recreate the article. Creating a new account doesn't let you avoid that agreement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this? & What the hell is this? Shelikesme (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please find another venue to promote yourself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck bro I'm not promoting anyone here Shelikesme (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I trying my best to contribute on wikipedia Shelikesme (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you Shelikesme (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to me Shelikesme (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you block me Shelikesme (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read that article first, there is nothing wrong in it, it has valid references, that ain't promotional. Shelikesme (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that article it has valid references and it was in last stage of publication. Shelikesme (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

God please bless wikipedia 🙏🏻

Shelikesme (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You hearing? Shelikesme (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speak to me now!!!! Shelikesme (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to me now!!! Shelikesme (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough!!!! Shelikesme (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the content first prior to blocking to me Shelikesme (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See it if God has given you eyes!!!!!!!!!! Shelikesme (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See that article first it's notable, it passes General Notability Guidelines Shelikesme (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no promotional thing over there, the other guy sorted out peacock statements. !!!!!! Shelikesme (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to check that article first, Now itself unsalt it now! Shelikesme (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey chat to me now!!!! Shelikesme (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock me, this was my first attempt to write about someone who I don't know. And the guys working in Wikipedia are blocking me instead. That article was around 95% successful article it doesn't contain any sort of promotion.To be frank! Shelikesme (talk) 20:29, 10 September 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. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 10 September 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.

You should be making this unblock request from your original account, User:Satyacyclopedia, but I can't imagine you being unblocked, since you'd already promised once you wouldn't attempt to recreate the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satyacyclopedia is my brother you blocked him, See the article, it ain't promotional. Please it's a request. Shelikesme (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your brother too? Talk page access revoked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]