User talk:Vlioos

This is Vlioos's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome to my Talk Page! :)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:D'Aydrian Harding

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:D'Aydrian Harding, 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: D'Aydrian Harding (November 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:D'Aydrian Harding and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

bonadea contributions talk 23:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vlioos! 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! bonadea contributions talk 23:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: D'Aydrian Harding (November 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:D'Aydrian Harding and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

qcne (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello, I'm CFA. I noticed that in this edit to Draft:Kanel Joseph, you removed all the content from the page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. C F A 💬 00:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to replace it for she or he so it can get accepted Vlioos (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: LifeandScars (November 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by I dream of horses were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not reliably sourced.

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:LifeandScars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on one or more other accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account. JBW (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I sincerely apologize for my previous actions and any disruption I caused. I understand now the importance of following Wikipedia’s guidelines and maintaining a positive, constructive presence. I’m committed to contributing respectfully and following the rules moving forward.

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely, vlioos Vlioos (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a platitude that any blocked user could write. You need to address the specifics of your situation (explaining what you specifically did wrong) to have any hope of being unblocked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:14, 28 November 2024 (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.

@Vlioos: Would you please provide us with a list of all Wikipedia accounts that you have ever used to make edits, whether they be on the English Wikipedia or any other project? The block is principally for abusing multiple accounts, so coming clean here might do a great deal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...a platitude that any blocked user could write..." Yes, any blocked user could write it, but of course they didn't; a computer program wrote it. If you are to be unblocked then you need to make an unblock request which persuades an administrator that you understand the reasons for the block. The computer program can't do that, because it doesn't understand; that's why it uses vague expressions such as "previous actions", without mentioning what those actions were, and what was wrong with them. If you decide to take up the standard offer, then when you come back after six months and make another unblock request, write it yourself, and make sure that it explains what the problems with your editing were, and what you will do differently in the future. This will be my last attempt to try to help you to understand how to get unblocked until the six months are up. I hope you will take the advice I have given you. JBW (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here you go its adionia, clioos, vlioos. all I'm asking is one more chance from the wikipedia community please and thank you. red tailed hawk (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlioos (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC (UTC)

What was your reasoning around this edit to the user talk page your first account earlier today? --bonadea contributions talk 17:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

trying to make an article in my talk page Vlioos (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to reply to the message they gave me

don't mind the other massage I gave you. Vlioos (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Red-tailed hawk said "The block is principally for abusing multiple accounts", but that is a misunderstanding. The block on you, the person, is principally for a whole string of unacceptable editing of several kinds. I originally gave the block reason for this account as abusing multiple accounts, but I was assuming it went without saying that all the reasons for the block on your original account still applied. Since that evidently doesn't go without saying, I have updated the reasons in the block log.

I shall follow the usual convention, by which an administrator does not decline an appeal of their own block, but leaves it to another administrator to make an independent review. However, I absolutely wouldn't consider unblocking you at present, in view of your unacceptable editing during the block. Apart from anything else, using a sockpuppet during a block for sockpuppetry is in itself an absolute bar to being unblocked. (I am confident that all of the administrators who are regularly active in reviewing unblock requests agree with that.) But that is not all: we have further unacceptable practices during the block, including more than once trying to fake an administrator's unblock acceptance, and your absurd lie in answer to Bonadea's question above: nobody who has seen that edit is going to believe that you were "trying to reply to the message they gave [you]". The way to get unblocked is to persuade an administrator that if you are unblocked you will not continue to edit disruptively, and you will not do that by continuing to edit disruptively during the block. I suggest that if you wish to return to editing you take up the Standard offer. JBW (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misreading the broader situation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]