User talk:AntonioTelevize

AntonioTelevize, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AntonioTelevize! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter has an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below:

"Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding."

Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous.

If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance.

Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available.

This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter has an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below: "Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding." Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous. If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance. Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available. This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter has an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below: "Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding." Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous. If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance. Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available. This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter has an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below: "Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding." Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous. If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance. Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available. This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

AntonioTelevize (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter appears to have an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below:

"Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding."

Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous.

If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance.

Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available.

This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter appears to have an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below: "Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding." Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous. If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance. Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available. This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter appears to have an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below: "Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding." Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous. If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance. Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available. This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=A person or group of persons have decided to block posts and delete accounts on unfounded accusations. Research, supporting references and searchable information online conflict with the information cited as reason for block or deletion by this person. Additionally, it appears that the Blocker/Deleter appears to have an overly strong objection to its subject because it conflicts with His/Her interests or agendas whatever those may be. The deletion occurred rapidly with an inadequate amount of time (within hours) to respond and little or no suggestions made to repair potential issues. The entire effort was personal, malicious, untrue and unfair. See below: "Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding." Wikipedia is not the forum to accuse and judge a business's merit especially without citing factual information that supports the accusation. Plenty of easily accessible information is available in the public domain that supports the opposite of False claims of Blocker/Deleter’s claims. "R(r)eplacing the official streaming links" and "This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding" are not supported by fact and are written to support an agenda. " T(t)hey pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee" is yet another purposefully written, irrelevant statement designed to meet some agenda and is not based on fact. Descriptors of the company such as "shady" and "insidious" only further suggests a disposition of purposeful interference, exaggeration, maliciousness, and libelous. If the Blocker/Deleter had done an unbiased review of the public company WhereverTV, and done it in good faith, he would have found audited financials posted in the public domain, a list of 130+ active channels under license, active corporate governance, current registrations with state and federal agencies, a list of public announcements chronicling progress and continuous corporate activity as well as active phone numbers for contact. An insinuation of fraud, pirating channels, illegal activity or questionable business strategies or product integrity is simply malicious, libelous, and potentially actionable. Furthermore, there are other similar entries to Wikipedia that have less merit, less longevity, less compliance, less product, and less governance. Similar purposeful dispositions have been displayed in the critique of the Harvey Kaltsas entry. In fact, the reasons cited for this deletion included vandalism. Harvey Kaltsas is a world renowned physician and there were more than adequate references provided to support all of the information included. Because Dr. Kaltsas is the very physician that personally remedied my own medical condition, I was able to take the photo myself with my own camera. And Therefore, I am the owner of the photo and any commensurate copyrights. I am certain that Dr. Kaltsas would verify this or be willing to upload his own photo. I believed that the correction of this issue was completed months ago, I was unaware of any continuing issue. Either way, this issue was used as leverage to delete other entries when an easy fix was available. This Contributor had only good intentions and a desire to become an informed and compliant contributor. A speedy reinstatement of the account and entries are requested including an opportunity to fix any recommended issues for any entry. Thank you. Sincerely and in earnest |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

AntonioTelevize (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Harvey Kaltsas.jpg

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 File:Harvey Kaltsas.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.hkacup.com/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. Whpq (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Spamming links

Consider every single edit regarding you adding a spam link to WhereverTV to a litany of networks reverted and removed. That you have done this for three years without detection is amazing, but completely unacceptable according to our policies. Expect some kind of action to prevent this from happening again. Nate • (chatter) 09:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic WhereverTV. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 09:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Last warning

Consider this your last warning. Stop spamming articles with unofficial links to WhereverTV or face a block. This stops, now. And for reference, I'm leaving a link to said policy below. Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at OK! TV. Also note that your spamming is a failure, as that show has been canceled for five years. Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Harvey Kaltsas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harvey Kaltsas 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/Harvey Kaltsas 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. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Harvey Kaltsas pic.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harvey Kaltsas pic.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WhereverTV COI/SPAM vandalism continuing. Thank you. We're done; stop spamming here or the next step is a complete blacklisting of your site. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Dream Satellite TV, 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. I am going to ensure that this link is added to the spam blacklist. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of WhereverTV for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WhereverTV 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/WhereverTV 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. Nate • (chatter) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)