User talk:TMOR

Blocked[edit]

In view of your article creations, which bear all the hallmarks of paid editing (see warning here), and your persistent unresponsiveness when asked/warned about WP:COI and paid editing, I have blocked you indefinitely for violations of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use, see WP:PAID. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Undo Aggressive Block[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been contributing on Wikipedia for over a year. But some aggressive people think I am doing paid editing. No one pays for creating a page or editing a page on mountain or a valley, so why did I do those editing or why did I create those articles. Even I talked on talk pages when they raised questions regarding the reference of a Glacier. I was not that concerned about the block of my account, because I was not losing and I'm still not losing anything due to account block. But after reading the comments by the administrators regarding my block, I thought of appealing for unblock. They were rejoicing like they had summitted the Everest, the fact was they had blocked me, that's it, and this is not like they had landed on moon or Mars. When I defend any editing or a page it is because, I think when I have spent time on creating those, I should try to express my thoughts regarding those contributions. I'm again saying; I am not editing for someone or on someone's order or to fulfill someone's wishes. I am not related to anyone else. I am not editing for any pay. TMOR (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) You have a history of personal attacks on other editors when you disagree with them. You have repeatedly posted unambiguously promotional content, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether you were paid for doing so or not. You have repeatedly tried to impose content of your own choice even when you know that consensus is against you, and have at times done so in evasive ways, as for example by re-creating an article under a different title after it was deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion. You are known to have abused at least one other account, and it is possible there may have been more. You have been evasive and have failed to give direct answers when asked about your editing. These and other considerations make it unlikely that unblocking you would benefit the project. (2) Now to consider your unblock request. Your unblock request makes further attacks on other editors, and makes absurd suggestions such as that administrators have been "rejoicing" over your block, which anyone who looks at the editing history can see is nonsense. If you took the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before submitting this request then you will have known that an unblock request containing stuff like that would stand virtually no chance of success. I also note with interest that you suggest that nobody who ever edits in ways that are unlikely to be paid for can possibly also edit for pay. As it happens, even if that were true it would be irrelevant, since, as I have indicated above, there are good reasons for keeping the block whether you have edited for pay or not; however, it isn't even true. Also, your unblock request makes it apparent that you wish to be unblocked not in order to be able to edit, but in order to score some sort of victory against Bishonen who blocked you; that is not a reason to unblock an account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2017 (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.

Proposed deletion of Mihai Gruia Sandu[edit]

The article Mihai Gruia Sandu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lacks sufficient coverage in relaible sources. does not meet notability .

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mihai Gruia Sandu[edit]

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 Mihai Gruia Sandu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, 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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Paolo Zagami for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paolo Zagami is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo Zagami until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]