Reliable sources

edit

Very sorry, but I have had to again revert an edit you made to O. D. Kobo. Haaretz is considered a reliable source, Forbes "contributor" is not, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for more. Edwardx (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I really appreciate your answer. I found it appropriate to remove the link from Haaretz because it is presented in the article in an inappropriate and disrespectful manner. I read that he is A respectable businessman. I would be happy if you find it appropriate to remove this link because it does not add to the encyclopedic entry. Again, greatly appreciate your attitude and your kind treatment. Thank you Mandotopo (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Throne Labs (April 4)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zippybonzo was:  The comment the reviewer left 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 when they have been resolved.
Zippybonzo | talk 12:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, Mandotopo! Having an article 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! Zippybonzo | talk 12:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

September 2022

edit

  This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Green tea, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Zefr (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Blocked as a sockpuppet

edit
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:רונ123 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/רונ123. 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, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
--Blablubbs (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply