User talk:Richardaldinho

Ways to improve Livetecs

Hi, I'm Abishe. Richardaldinho, thanks for creating Livetecs!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Welcome to Wikipedia.By the way, thanks for creating this article.I just reviewed the page and I hope that you have used your own words with the help of references to write the article. Happy Editing.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	This award is awarded for not about creating an article but I award this to you because of only for your resillient approach in creating Livetecs. Well I appreciate your talent and willingness to create an article about which you are dreaming. Abishe (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! Richardaldinho (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues and conflicts regarding the article Livetecs

Well I noticed you have created Livetecs for the second time after getting deleted. But I identified some improvements in the article and you have got some key ideas from fellow Wikipedians. On the other hand, I saw there were some conflicts between you and Largoplazo on the article's talk page and you also told me about it. Maybe that User seeks more references and high quality information about Livetecs. I think you have used your own words to describe the article using references instead of copying and pasting the information directly to the article, which is considered as copyright violation. But the User who nominated for deletion may be unhappy with the notability criteria. That's it. Abishe (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

November 2017

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, 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.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I see no reasons for blocking - my recent edits and page creations have met all Wikipedia guidelines and shown me to be a good student of the site. Berean Hunter appears to have blocked me for attempting to clean up a page with issues that was nominated for deletion, and for posting a Leave recommendation. Nothing I did was outside of Wiki guidelines. My account has been flagged for misuse - perhaps Berean Hunter feels that my account has been used by a third party. I can assure you that it hasn't; my style of writing should be evident within my recent edits, including my work to clean up the page Oliver Isaacs for which I have been blocked. I have also posted my IP below and any references to prior offences should prove either unfounded or the simple work of a newcomer, as in the Livetecs reference. Surely newcomers deserve the benefit of the doubt as written here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers All I have tried to do is edit and create pages for people and things I come across in life.

Decline reason:

The appeal to "forgot to log in" falls flat; AGF is not a suicide pact, and it's just a little too convenient to believe that you "forgot to log in" when you !voted keep as an IP on an AfD on an article that you created that you had previously commented on while logged in, less than an hour previously. And on the more recent AfD there's also very suspicious behavior tells, which when combined with the CU result indicating you have IP-socked, it's going to take a lot more than "I forgot to log in" to get you unblocked, and you're going to want to avoid blaming other editors when you next appeal your block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 10 November 2017 (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.

Unequivocal IP socking. No question that you did it.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: You are 100% mistaken. 86.28.216.250 is my IP address - I have no issues with sharing this with you so that you can view the edit history. Richardaldinho (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livetecs

That is you taking part in that AfD as an account and an IP, right? Your IP's "keep" has the impression that someone neutral just wandered into that AfD. You declared that you didn't have a COI and then logged out to make an IP "keep".
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: 1. You have blocked me for taking issue with my comments from Oliver Isaacs and have stricken my comments, which were entirely valid, showing that you yourself are abusing Wiki guidelines. You are now referring to an unrelated page to substantiate inappropriate censure. See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_should_not_be_punitive 2. You will notice that your historical referral was pretty much my first experience of editing Wikipedia - I wasn't experienced in how to use talk pages particularly although I have since done a lot of reading and made some useful edits and pages as my account history will show, and 3. I quote: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry "Additionally, one who has an account may sometimes forget or be too lazy to sign in some of the time, or may be unable to for technical reasons, and therefore make IP edits." You will see minor edits made by my IP as I don't always remember to sign in; not an issue, although something I try to avoid as much as possible. Richardaldinho (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Do you not see that it was the first page I worked on? I can assure you that the IP/user conflict was in no way intentional and apologise unreservedly for giving the impression of otherwise. As I say, I was a new user getting to grips with the mechanics of Wikipedia. However, with regards to the Oliver Isaacs page, I am in no way affiliated with the other users there; I have now seen some kind of suggestion that I am a duplicate of another user. Surely an IP check would confirm that this is not true? Richardaldinho (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to CheckUser, it confirmed that it was. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: I have posted my IP freely (no pun intended) here. The other user is called Wikieditions. I can absolutely guarantee you that you will find no connection whatsoever if you check, because no such connection exists. Richardaldinho (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Bri.public (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fortis Bangalore

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 Fortis Bangalore, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bri.public (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri.public: @Bri:While I disagree with your nomination, there isn't a great deal I can do about it seeing as I have been unnecessarily blocked. However, I do note your comment on the Fortis Bangalore page that suggests a possible G5 and I would like to set you straight; my ban was imposed today and therefore G5 does not apply. Please amend. Richardaldinho (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces)

The article John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Obvious terms of use violation and spam.

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

Please consider improving the page 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Can I ask why this violates any terms of use? And why I am now being assumed to be a sock of Wikieditions? And how I can prove otherwise? I have provided my IP here so a check will confirm that I have no connections and that this is a case of mistaken identity. Richardaldinho (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because your edit history makes it clear that you are likely an undeclared paid editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Can you explain that term a little further please? I'm not sure I follow entirely. I haven't been paid to edit Wikipedia if that's what you mean? But I don't get the undeclared bit. Richardaldinho (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have all the hallmarks of a paid promotional editor with previous experience: the articles you create are promotional and clearly not created by a new user. The intersection on that AfD above is also a bit much for me given the other articles created. I'll send this to AfD, however, for now as a courtesy. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I don't really know what to say other than that I am a new user - again, how can I prove this? As for my writing style - I thought that I was doing well in conforming to neutrality with no biased or leading language, and providing good sources. I am aware this is taking up your time now, but if you can provide me with some examples of promotional language I've used / give me some tips on how to avoid these kinds of discussions in future, it would be much appreciated. I also note that the deletion tag on the page I wrote about a band I like - The Cherry Dolls -has me down as being linked to the user Wikieditions. Again I would urge that someone checked this out; there will be no IP attachment and barring some kind of freak coincidence, no geographical similarities either; I doubt very much that there are many users from Leeds on Wiki - it's not a particularly large city. How can I prove this as well? Really I just want to keep on editing and avoid stuff like this from happening again. Richardaldinho (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces) 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/John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces) 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 notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Adda52

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 Adda52, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timelive for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timelive 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/Timelive 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undeclared paid editing.

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 ~~~~}}. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]