User talk:Stevannus rua

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Stevannus rua! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 10:48, Thursday, July 27, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Declined A7 - Draft:Abdul mozid sheikh

I have declined your speedy deletion request for Draft:Abdul mozid sheikh. A7 is applicable only in article space, and does not apply to drafts. -- Whpq (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stevannus rua, I told you on July 30 that you are not sufficiently experienced or knowledgeable to tag pages for speedy deletion and to stop doing so. You removed my post, ignored it, and once again demonstrated that you should not be speedy tagging. My first post was advice. This one is a warning. If you persist in abusing the deletion process, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 14:09, 5 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I never advertise on wikipedia. Stevannus rua (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I believe that the reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

where is the proof i advertise here Stevannus rua (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In your deleted contributions, where you repeatedly recreated an article about Twinkle Arora. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

why am I accused of re-creating the article? I just added the csd tag in the article Stevannus rua (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2023 (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) 10:49, 6 August 2023 (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 mean this article? [1] Stevannus rua (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

pls unblock

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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2023 (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 not send me any more e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The account was mistakenly blocked for "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising". This account has never engaged in spam or advertising on Wikipedia. It is used solely for constructive editing and improving Wikipedia. I apologize for any confusion and kindly request the block be removed so I may continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Stevannus rua (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend revoking talk page access and email access. Like Bbb23, I have been getting content-free appeals from this appelant despite there being an edit notice "I do not consider unblock or undeletion requests sent via email." and have also been petitioned twice on id.wp, again devoid of any reasoning. MER-C 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After being told not to e-mail me again, you did. I have therefore disabled your ability to send e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Bbb23,

I'm writing regarding the blocking of my Wikipedia account. My account was blocked for suspected "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, covert advertising."

I want to assure you that I have not engaged in covert advertising or promotion on Wikipedia. My contributions aimed to provide neutral, verifiable information to improve Wikipedia.

The edits in question were made in good faith to share knowledge, not self-promotion. I apologize for any misunderstanding about those edits. I never intended to spam or advertise, only to make helpful contributions.

Going forward, I will be even more mindful to ensure my edits meet Wikipedia's strict neutrality standards. I have learned from this experience and wish to continue adding valuable information per Wikipedia's policies.

I hope you will reconsider unblocking me. If any of my edits are still concerning, please advise me on constructive participation within the rules. I welcome any suggestions to improve.

Thank you for reviewing my unblock request. I appreciate your hard work to keep Wikipedia trusted and neutral. Please let me know if any other details would help resolve this block. I look forward to your reply. Stevannus rua (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account was blocked due to an incorrect assumption of using Wikipedia for spam or advertising. I have never utilized this account for any promotional or commercial purposes whatsoever. My contributions have been made in good faith to enhance the encyclopedia with valuable information for readers. There has been a misunderstanding, and I humbly ask for the block to be lifted so that I may resume collaborating productively on Wikipedia articles. If any admin has questions or concerns, please contact me directly. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Stevannus rua (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined, partly procedural: no one is interested in unblocking this editor, and the sneer at Bbb is indicative of vindictive behavior. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (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.

UTRS appeal #80828 is closed.

tl;dr. With three, (count 'em! three!) open unblock requests here, an overly wordy UTRS ticket is superfluous. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: My account was mistakenly blocked for suspected advertising/spamming which I have never done. I am an educator editing Wikipedia in good faith for over a year to share knowledge, not self-promote. My edits aim to improve articles by adding well-researched info, fixing errors, etc. Monetization goes against my principles. I sincerely apologize if any edits came across wrongly as that was never my intent. I humbly ask for the block to be lifted so I can continue contributing constructively to this valuable encyclopedia. I am willing to cooperate fully with admins to resolve this situation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Stevannus rua (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out your unblock requests except the last one. You may have only one open at a time. If you persist in disrupting this page, I will remove your access to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way to "resolve this situation" is to please follow instructions. I will repeat them here. Please concisely and clearly describe how your editing merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]