User talk:Olisaiuer

Nomination of Art Beatz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Art Beatz 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/Art Beatz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mikey See for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mikey See 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/Mikey See until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello Olisaiuer. The nature of your edits 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Olisaiuer. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Olisaiuer|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. Template:Z159 Praxidicae (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: I have no financial stakes or any kind of conflict of interest with the pages I created. Can you please be specific about what made you think that I might have a COI with Mikey See? Olisaiuer (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.  MER-C 17:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: WTF is this!? Is this a joke? You are clearly abusing your admin tools. Olisaiuer (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am suddenly blocked by @MER-C: with false blame of advertising or promotion. One of my articles which was tagged with paid-editing is based on mere suspicion with no substantial basis. I am appealing for unblocking me. Olisaiuer (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The article you created was written in blatantly promotional terms, and was also a copyright violation. You would need to address both of those issues in any new unblock request. Also, accusing the blocking admin of abuse of the admin tools is a poor strategy for getting unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

As stated, I was incorrectly blocked by the admin. The reason given for my block is incorrect. English is not my native language so there was some close paraphrasing with an online published article that was written in promotional tone. I had no intention to write anything blatantly promotional because I am aware that such articles are speedily deleted according to G11. I will be more careful next time with my edits. The claims of paid-editing were unfounded and not true. I planned to improve some biographical articles with infoboxes and references so please unblock me. Kindly consider this as my humble request. Olisaiuer (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is nothing wrong with not having English as a first language, but if your grasp of English is not sufficient to avoid copyright violations and promotional writing, then you probably shouldn't be editing here, regardless of the purity of your intentions. You may want to consider editing the Wikipedia version in your own native language instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yunshui: I have at least the knowledge to distinguish promotional writing and I will try not to make any further promotional writings or make any copyright violations. I will edit the Wikipedia version in my own language if available but that doesn't imply that I should not be able to edit the English Wikipedia which is the largest among all. To be honest, there are several other promotional articles on Wikipedia yet their creators are not blocked. What I can see is a clear bias. If your intention is not to unblock me then say it straightforward please.Olisaiuer (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are seeing other articles that are clearly promotional, the most likely reason is just that nobody has spotted them yet - so please assume good faith and do not make accusations of bias. Nobody is biased against you or against the subject of your article. If you see any blatantly promotional articles, please feel free to request deletion (see WP:Deletion for the options). Any intention not to unblock can only be based on the most recent unblock request, and can be changed if the next unblock request is adequate - and nobody can predict the intention of the next reviewer. But, right now, the fact that you did not see that your deleted article was written in blatantly promotional language does not give me confidence in your claim that "I have at least the knowledge to distinguish promotional writing". Anyway, if you want to make a new unblock request, please do so using the unblock template and another admin will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: please accept my apologies for that. I was wrong about the bias thing. It was my fault because the deleted article was indeed promotional. Olisaiuer (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You will also need to give a good explanation regarding how you were one of 10 people who stumbled upon https://www.flickr.com/photos/187707743@N07/49725315602/in/dateposted-public , the source of File:$tupid Young.jpg, one day after it was uploaded by a Flickr account that has only uploaded that photo. MER-C 11:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: I apologies to you too for my harsh words. It was a quick react in the heat of the moment. About that flickr photo, I really do not know how I can convince you because it was a coincidence. I do not even have any idea about who might be the other 9 people. If I had the intentions to whitewash flickr then I would have done so for the other pages I created. Olisaiuer (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I clearly understood one of my deleted articles was promotional. I have read and understood WP:SPAM and I confirm you will not see anything spam/advertising/promotional tone/words in my contributions again. I also want to mention that I have no COI with the subjects of my articles and I will not edit anything which can violate WP:COI or any other Wikipedia policies mentioned in WP:RULES. I will make constructive contributions only. Please consider my appeal and kindly unblock me. Olisaiuer (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think you'd need to explain your connection to Olurteilanru (talk · contribs), which is  Confirmed to you. You also seem to be rapidly creating sleepers on proxies, which is not exactly something that fills me with confidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Please check again carefully. I do not know this editor or have any connection to this editor or any of the accounts you listed as sleepers. I do use proxies to access blocked sites in my office. Olisaiuer (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)