User talk:Isaacandy

Welcome to Dr. Isaac Andy, PhD | ^t@lk

This is Isaacandy's talk page, where you can send him 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.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Isaacandy[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Isaacandy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages 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. 大诺史 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (updated my own profile and didnt realized that it was auto saved prior to confirming those changes added. Have removed the newly added details ) --Dr. Isaac Andy, PhD | ^t@lk 05:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to One stop shop. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Isaacandy[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 User:Isaacandy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Kleuske (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 11 May 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).

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

Request reason:

My objectives was to provide what was listed on the page's requirement that it shows the following as below: * This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (June 2013) * This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2013) Perhaps you are familiar with where and which sites are to be used for citations to fix the article issues. As for me, its only until it has been verified and reverted by someone like you guys, only then i will know. and i am only familiar with genuine and reliable reference with those that was published by reliable publications and it wasn't some fake site that i was referencing. can i assume that if there's article that was published by even bloomberg, but if has to do with any write-ups about me, is it also rejected and blocked like this ?shouldn't we put in those reference that we are sure of, rather than some random site which we Google search and paste the Cite as reference instead ? Hope you understand where i am coming from. Thanks Dr. Isaac Andy, PhD | ^t@lk 08:36, 11 May 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. Yamla (talk) 11:13, 11 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

i understand exactly what i was blocked for.

And this will be an experience in better understanding.
this was a genuine mistake and have no intention to damage or disrupt any wikipedia articles.
Infact i was in the midst of translating the article to another language.
I am committed to provide useful contribution.

thanking you in advance Dr. Isaac Andy, PhD | ^t@lk 11:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All you've done so far is spam our website. What do you intent to do in the future? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:44, 11 May 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.

I have been doing the translating from en to ms.wikipedia, contributing at wikitech , AI projects, ESEAP as well as up upkeeping patches & updating codes on Gerrit at wikimedia.
And for these cases, while I was translating; I noticed that there wasn't any reference that it had to explain its description.
- The only thing I've done, was to quote the business terms to a an IT publication website that published with the exact title that was used on the article.
It wasn't in my intention at all to spam. you may check on the translated MS version which I was translating that was the same article which I had added a Ref: to the Title with the exact wording. And the articles.for translation was sent to my talk.
.SPAMMING is referenced to amending the articles to be misleading, and it was referenced to an unverified source with an intention. Which, in this case I was not. And the log will show exactly what I did & it should justify to why the ref: was made for.
Anyways Sorry! It's my mistake to assume that those wikipedia articles needs additional source references.
This is what I will do:
- I am assuring you that; moving forward, I WILL not make any kinds of amendments on the articles, just as what I've been doing since the first time I had this account created 11 years ago. (Eventhough patches updated and etc may cause much worst impact to the entire wiki)
- You can be assured that I have no intentions to do any promotions on wikipedia, especially when I even have my own Knowledge panel.
But to be fair, there wasn't any other changes made, apart from adding a site reference, which was linking to the exact as the article Title was. to be frank, I didn't wanted my efforts on the translation to go to waste should the article was removed, so I tried to fulfill its requirement on a single source by adding on an additional source url from a verifiable site that had the exact Title on its publication.
- didn't think it would need to be undergoing all these and get my account I had for 11 years be deleted ?
having said all of these. I just wish to retain my account that was already created almost the same as you guys. And I don't believe that, throughout all those years, there wasn't any mistake or wrong assumptions done? And I'm sure, to your defence, It's a genuine mistake, right?
So, if you could just make this as a warning & unblock my account.
Again, I'm sorry & request your kind assistance to unblock my account l.

Dr. Isaac Andy, PhD  | ^t@lk 19:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont quite get what's going on actually with this talk page. Why does it kept showing different views each time I access this site ? I just got an email that i was being blocked again, but i cant seem to find anything as specified on the email. Can i know what's going on ? Dr. Isaac Andy, PhD | ^t@lk 02:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what email you're talking about. However, you're now blocked on ms.wiki, too. You might have your site preferences set to receive an email alert about that. If you want to be unblocked on English Wikipedia, I suggest you make another unblock request that states what you will do to help out here. From what you've said above, you still don't seem to understand why you're even blocked, though. The reason why you're blocked is because you're abusing our website to promote yourself and your business. If you want to be unblocked, you will need to stop talking about yourself and your business, and start volunteering your time to improve articles that have nothing to do with yourself. An example would be expanding our encyclopedia article on the history of World War II. If this kind of selfless volunteer activity holds no interest for you, maybe you should be using a different website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 12 May 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).

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

Request reason:

i now understand that no external sites should be cited for reference. t

have no intention to damage or disrupt any wikipedia articles
and moving forward, i will abide by the Guidelines given.
Appreciate your kind assistance to unblock my account}
I will ensure that all updates will be strictly followed or otherwise i will get assistance from the admin..

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Your account is now globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, which means you'll have to appeal to the Wikimedia stewards. If you truly don't understand why all this is happening, I suggest you try IRC live help. The volunteers there may be able to assist you in getting your account restored. You might want to read through Wikipedia, the encyclopedia article about Wikipedia itself. This will hopefully explain to you what Wikipedia is, and why your actions are seen as disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 12 May 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.

Dr. Isaac Andy, PhD | ^t@lk 03:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unblock discussion[edit]

You need to do more than rephrase the unblock conditions. You will need to agree to no longer edit about your self.. Your meta user page needs to come down. That is clearly you advertising yourself. You also added spam to One stop shop. Please tell us what constructive, non promotional edits you will make. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]