User talk:Wennradio

Image Tagging for Image:Tariq-nasheed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tariq-nasheed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Charm school.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Charm school.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Brianga (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The art of gold digging

A tag has been placed on The art of gold digging requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TheLetterM (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Flexlean.JPG}

Thank you for uploading File:Flexlean.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Flexlean.JPG}

Thank you for uploading File:Flexlean.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Flexlean.JPG}

Thank you for uploading File:Flexlean.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Str8A1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Str8A1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on the page Tariq Nasheed worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. Maen. K. A. (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tariq Elite 2009.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Tariq Elite 2009.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam

Hello, Wennradio …

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{10:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Tariq Nasheed

I have nominated Tariq Nasheed, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Nasheed. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tariq Nasheed

A tag has been placed on Tariq Nasheed, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hidden Colors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hidden Colors 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/Hidden Colors 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. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, Wennradio. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. You should have had this explained to you some time ago. Minor edits such as changing the release date are fine, but removing information because it isn't favorable to the subject or adding promotional information can get editors blocked. I've had to revert you before for this. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

You don't seem to understand - a minor edit such as removing a year of birth is ok. Deleting material because your client might not like it is simply unacceptable. Continue to do that and we will conclude that you are not here to build the encyclopedia and should simply be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Plantation celebration awards

The article Plantation celebration awards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 13:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued use of this account for promotion

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. [1] [2] [3] [4] --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.

While I appreciate your subsequent edits aren't promotional in nature, you didn't provide any sources nor indicate why you felt the changes necessary. [5] [6] --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced information is being allowed on this page, and we I put verifiable source links for the accurate information, some users are removing the info.Wennradio (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tariq Nasheed. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be used to misrepresent certain public figures because of some seemingly ideological reservations about the individual. It appears that two editors here on Wikipedia may have some sort of bias against this individual, and the information they are posting is not only in bad faith, some of it is simply wrong. Deliberately posting false information is "edit warring". Posting accurate information with verifiable links, which is what I have done, is engaging by the rules of Wikipedia's standards, correct? Wennradio (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not edit-warring, and your last sentence is also wrong as I point out below. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice - ANI

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Wennradio. Please consider joining the discussion. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice - Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tariq_Nasheed. Please consider joining the discussion. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing

Hello Wennradio. In an edit from 2009 here, you described yourself as the official representative for Tariq Nasheed. You should be aware that as of June 2014, Wikipedia implemented a mandatory policy where editors who have been paid for their work on Wikipedia must disclose which articles they have been paid to edit, and who is paying them to do so. In keeping with that policy, you must review and comply with this policy, and make the proper disclosures. What follows is a preformatted message for editors who have yet to comply with this policy.

Hello Wennradio. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Tariq Nasheed, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Wennradio. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Wennradio|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid by anyone, and that deliberately bogus claim is a flimsy attempt to justify allowing biased and clearly misleading information to be posted about Mr. Nasheed. It appears the same 2 Wikipedia “editors” are deliberately erasing verified information in order to post gossipy , borderline troll talking points. That is clearly against the rules of Wikipedia. Making false claims about editors being “paid” is just as bad as making up lies about certain individuals in the public. Wennradio (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are a representative of Nasheed. Please note that verification (in reliable sources, see WP:RS) is necessary but not sufficient reason to include something in this encyclopedia. And the fact that you never used the article talk page or responded to warnings here is also blockable. You are a single purpose account as well. Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." Doug Weller talk 12:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was so easy for these "editors/contributors" to lie on me, falsely claiming I was paid to post on wikipedia, it just assay for them to lie on prominent Black American public figures who they seem to have a personal vendetta against. And that was the reason why a fair and balanced person needed to correct some of the anti-Black rhetoric that was posted. Again, I am not paid by anyone. I volunteered to correctly represent the individual who was being misrepresented on wikipedia. Wennradio (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was a flagrant violation of the basic polices of WP:VERIFICATION and WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised by the bogus claim to block me from posting. There is an entire Wikipedia entry on the anti-Black racism that is prevalent among the editors of wikipedia, The fact that I kept correcting the rhetoric from anti-Black message boards that were being added to this page, was obviously seen as a problem. This type of behavior that is being allowed on wikipedia has eroded the integrity of wikipedia. And if the editors are going to engage in racist, 4chan type of tactics, then stop pretending to be neutral, when in fact you are operating like a propaganda mill. Wennradio (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to play the race card with me. I marched with King and Selma and have a track record here of blocking racists, Nazis, anti-Semites, any such bigotry. The fact is that you are pushing a WP:Fringe view and promoting a particular author, and even if you aren't literally paid there is no question about the fact you have a conflict of interest. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And not surprisingly you've misinterpreted Racial bias on Wikipedia, which does not say that racism is prevalent among Wikipedia editors but that it has "a systemic racial bias in its coverage. This stems in part from an under-representation of people of color within its editor base." It also discusses what we have done to try to overcome this - not enough yet for sure though. We do get racist editors but as I've said, they usually get blocked and are a tiny minority. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]