EpicGuy22

Your submission at Articles for creation: Transbanian (July 29)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Transbanian and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

StartOkayStop (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, EpicGuy22! Having an article draft 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! StartOkayStop (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Transbanian (July 29)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Curbon7 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your crank language.

Curbon7 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, EpicGuy22. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Transbanian

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 Transbanian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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.

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. Storchy (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Reason for unblocking

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).

EpicGuy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have done nothing wrong EpicGuy22 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You repeatedly flouted our conflict of interest guidelines to write about a language that you made up and were blocked accordingly. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 3 November 2022 (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.

Unblock request

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).

EpicGuy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My account should not be suspended because of this.EpicGuy22 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are mistaken. Yamla (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2022 (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.

Reason to 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).

EpicGuy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have learned from my mistakes and promise to look over my Wikipedia pages in the future. EpicGuy22 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What have you learned? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:00, 3 November 2022 (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.

Reason for unblocking

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).

EpicGuy22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have learned from my mistakes and know it’s wrong to submit a page that doesn’t have enough sources. EpicGuy22 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sockpuppet of blocked spammer, Dneail. Updated block to reflect this. Yamla (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2022 (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.

This is not the primary lesson you should have taken. --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What should I have learned then? EpicGuy22 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly explained to you above. If you don't know yet, WP:CIR applies. --Yamla (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then. I do want to bring your attention to this, though: “It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake". We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.” But, I have learned.

EpicGuy22 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You were warned. You ignored the warning. You clearly haven't learned, as you have no idea (or at least, are not able to express) why your edits were inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I got banned because it wasn't "notable" enough, which just stupid. Just because I created something doesn't mean it's not real. EpicGuy22 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure you have read WP:COI? If not, don't respond further until you have done so. WP:NOT, as well. --Yamla (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of blocked spammer

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

Yamla (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #75973

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Declined carried over Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. it is not the place to publicize something you made up. Also, a check user has confirmed that you are evading a block and abusing multiple accounts. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)