Reuben1995

August 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Blatant abuse of Wikipedia processes (AfC). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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).

Reuben1995 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, I am sorry for abusing the Wikipedia process (AfC) and take full responsibilities for my actions. I did not know it was against the rules to accept my own article, if i still followed the guidelines while reviewing. I have read and fully understood the (AfC) Guidelines and did not see anything stating that it was against Wikipedia rules to accept your own article. I am still kind of new and is still learning new things everyday. I am not a user that is here to cause damage or disruption, but i am a user that loves to make productive contributions to Wikipedia articles. I will make sure to never accept my own articles again.

Decline reason:

As Peridon says, I thought it would be obvious. To even consider an unblock, I'd want reassurances that you've matured to the point where such mistakes will not be repeated. PhilKnight (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2016 (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.

Whether it is in the rules specifically or not, I would have thought that it was obvious that the whole point of having a review procedure was to get things reviewed independently. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand this now, but if you are going to tell me to make sure I read and understand something, atleast make sure to include "do not accept your own articles, they have to be reviewed independently" if I would at least seen this in the guidelines, I wouldn't have did such a thing, and blocking me indefinit for one mistake and no warning is not fair.Reuben 13:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You made 500 blank edits to gain access to the review mechanism because you knew full well that the article you created would not be accepted by the community. The two other reasons for your blck are 'creating inappropriate articles', and [that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. There are probably a few more too, but that will do for now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought there must be more to the block than just self-accepting.... Peridon (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I made edits to my article. They where not blank edits, they were edits of me fixing the article. 2. I did not create inappropriate articles, I made 2 articles of the same person different information, then I combined them together, and then I created an article for a company. And I only accepted one article, if I was abusing the process I would of just accepted all of my articles, which I could have easily done, but that's not what I am here to do. Reuben 19:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have learned my lesson about doing such thing, and I will never repeat those same mistakes again. Also, There is no reason to salt the article either because Trizzy will meet Wikipedia's criteria sooner then you think. it is not his fault for what I did. I take full responsibility for my actions.Reuben 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Note that you spammed in that article just to get edit count so that you can participate the WP:AfC WikiProject. You had made about 350 edits under a day. I don't really think a draft article doesn't need much edit. And spamming about 50 a won't help. NgYShung ^huh? 10:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Ruby Recordings

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 Draft:Ruby Recordings, 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. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:TrizzyBeats.png

The file File:TrizzyBeats.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Personal image / non-notable person, unused

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 1989 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)