Cvlwr
|
The article See Me Not has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The article Saroos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- References fail to demonstrate how this article's subject satisfies criteria for inclusion at WP:BAND
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saroos 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/Saroos until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Saroos 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 Saroos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, 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. Under 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 that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case edit
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cvlwr for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 94.12.133.144 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Cvlwr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I admit that I have made several sockpuppets, which is a violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Now, I understand the reason why I'm blocked from editing Wikipedia. I apologize for it. If unblocked, I promise I will never do it again. Please unblock me. Cvlwr (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's a bit late to claim that you have now understood after one of the longest multiple sockpuppet cases I've ever come across. I have no reason to believe that you would drop the habit so easily. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
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.
Cvlwr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I admit that I have made several sockpuppets, which is a violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Now, I understand the reason why I'm blocked from editing Wikipedia. I apologize for it. If unblocked, I promise I will never do it again. Please unblock me. Cvlwr (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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 admit that I have made several sockpuppets, which is a violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Now, I have understood the reason why I am blocked from editing Wikipedia. I apologize for my behavior. If unblocked, I promise I will never do it again. because there is no valid reason for me to use multiple accounts anymore. I sincerely hope you give me the second chance. Please unblock me. Cvlwr (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion is that the only way you could possibly regain the community's trust now is by the Standard Offer. There's no guarantee, but if you fulfill the terms and come back and ask again in six months, you might find an admin who will let you back. I certainly wouldn't unblock you now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your input, Boing! said Zebedee. I will try this one. Cvlwr (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reverting comments from an admin and calling them a "troll" in your edit summary will really not help your chances of being unblocked, even after six months. Don't forget, when an admin reviews any future unblock request, they will look at your edit history and the history of this page, they will read the admin comments that you have removed, and they will review all of your behaviour. And on the off chance a reviewing admin doesn't spot what you just did, I'll be watching your talk page (as I expect will Kudpung) and you can be sure that they will be alerted to your behaviour here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I just want you to know that Kudpung somehow removed 94.12.133.144's notification about sockpuppetry case and changed my timestamp with this edit. That's why I was confused and called him "troll". Nevertheless, I should have assumed his good faith. Cvlwr (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That edit was an unblock review, and there was clearly a technical error - possibly a technical glitch, which happens sometimes. The thing to do is Assume good faith and ask the person in question if what they did was deliberate (or just fix up the technical error yourself and say no more about it, which is what I would have done). And your "troll" comment was against this removal of a later message from Kudpung, following on from this removal of his previous message. Assuming someone is a troll because of the removal (as I say, almost certainly accidental) of a relatively unimportant message and then using that as a reason to remove all their future messages really is not showing much good faith on your part, and is not helping your case. Do you know what I would recommend now? I'd recommend you just shut up and go away for at least six months and try again then - don't comment any further here (because you're only digging yourself in deeper), don't remove any other messages from here, and definitely no "troll" accusations! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I just want you to know that Kudpung somehow removed 94.12.133.144's notification about sockpuppetry case and changed my timestamp with this edit. That's why I was confused and called him "troll". Nevertheless, I should have assumed his good faith. Cvlwr (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)