User talk:Juan90264

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020Vision

A tag has been placed on Category:2020Vision requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fahim (film) (January 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 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 films). 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fahim (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fahim (film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juan90264! Having an article 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! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sub Urban (January 21)

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

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sub Urban and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sub Urban, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sub Urban (January 30)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Genius.com is unreliable per WP:UGC. WikiOfCelebs is also unreliable under the linked guideline. Please include more reliable sources.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sub Urban and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sub Urban, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Jalen Folf (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sub Urban (January 30)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Stills fails the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN. As previously stated Genius.com is not an acceptable source - neither is Quora.com.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sub Urban and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sub Urban, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Urban

Your draft article has not been approved for main article space. Overwriting the redirect Sub Urban in order to force your declined draft through is disruptive, please stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNLOCK ME PLEASE !!!!!!

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).

Juan90264 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know I found that I was wrong, I didn't follow the wikipedia rule. But I promise that I will not violate again just unblock me, if you want I will not be back on en.wikipedia. UNLOCK ME PLEASE !!!!!! I see that abusing editing a wikipedia page is wrong, but if I unblock myself I can be a checker of English wikipedia pages Juan90264 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account.
PS-- socking is not the only issue, though it is quite significant. Your editing pattern suggests WP:UPE . If this is the case, please read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID. It will be necessary for you to list all other accounts you have used, anyone who is paying you, and all articles you have been paid to edit.-- Deep fried okra 06:02, 31 January 2020 (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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fahim (film) (February 24)

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

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 films). 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.

This is the English Language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English Language. Please provide a high-quality English Language translation of your submission. Otherwise, you may write it in the 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fahim (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fahim (film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2020Vision

Hello, Juan90264. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2020Vision".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Fahim (film)

Hello, Juan90264. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fahim".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Juan90264 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. It's been two years since the lock performed on 30 de janeiro de 2020, and of my previous unlock request, and now I'm trying to request my unlock again. I was blocked for using sockpuppet, but I believe that this block was applied unduly, because the alleged reason "This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.", but I didn't use the accounts confirmed by the CheckUser that blocked me, being Ju042007 (talk · contribs) and Juan542c21 (talk · contribs), I only used these accounts on Commons and I didn't even edit using them here on enwiki. (I don't remember the password currently, and I believe that I didn't configure email for these accounts)

I understand that even though I didn't make use of these accounts here on this wiki, I shouldn't have created these two accounts, also for "breach of community trust" (which happened on Commons, and I see that also here) and I intend not to continue with these account creations, making it clear what my main account is, it is this "Juan90264" and I currently don't use another one besides from that.

In my previous request, "It will be necessary for you to list all other accounts you have used, anyone who is paying you, and all articles you have been paid to edit."; I'd like to make it clear that no one paid me to try to create these articles, and I was fixated on trying to get these articles created by seeking to contribute, but I now understand that I clearly shouldn't have insisted at the time, as the articles weren't complying WP:UGC, and one of them at the time did not meet the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN.

I currently understand that I should have asked for help at the time and not insisted on my mistake, as I didn't understand how the rules of notoriety and of the sources used in the articles worked, but I currently understand part of these rules and I hope to be able to contribute, and if I have questions ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk or Wikipedia:Help desk.

Sincerely, Juan90264 (Talk) 23:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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=Hello. It's been two years since the lock performed on 30 de janeiro de 2020, and of my previous unlock request, and now I'm trying to request my unlock again. I was blocked for using sockpuppet, but I believe that this block was applied unduly, because the alleged reason "This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.", but I didn't use the accounts confirmed by the CheckUser that blocked me, being [[User:Ju042007|Ju042007]] ([[User talk:Ju042007|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Ju042007|contribs]]) and [[User:Juan542c21|Juan542c21]] ([[User talk:Juan542c21|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Juan542c21|contribs]]), I only used these accounts on Commons and I didn't even edit using them here on enwiki. (I don't remember the password currently, and I believe that I didn't configure email for these accounts)

I understand that even though I didn't make use of these accounts here on this wiki, I shouldn't have created these two accounts, also for "breach of community trust" (which happened on Commons, and I see that also here) and I intend not to continue with these account creations, making it clear what my main account is, it is this "Juan90264" and I currently don't use another one besides from that.

In my previous request, "It will be necessary for you to list all other accounts you have used, anyone who is paying you, and all articles you have been paid to edit."; I'd like to make it clear that no one paid me to try to create these articles, and I was fixated on trying to get these articles created by seeking to contribute, but I now understand that I clearly shouldn't have insisted at the time, as the articles weren't complying [[WP:UGC]], and one of them at the time did not meet the requirements of [[WP:NMUSICIAN]].

I currently understand that I should have asked for help at the time and not insisted on my mistake, as I didn't understand how the rules of notoriety and of the sources used in the articles worked, but I currently understand part of these rules and I hope to be able to contribute, and if I have questions ask at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk]] or [[Wikipedia:Help desk]].
Sincerely, [[User:Juan90264|<span style="color:#0101DF; background:#01DFD7;">Juan90264</span>]] [[User talk:Juan90264|<span style="color:#01DF01;">(Talk)</span>]] 23:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |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=Hello. It's been two years since the lock performed on 30 de janeiro de 2020, and of my previous unlock request, and now I'm trying to request my unlock again. I was blocked for using sockpuppet, but I believe that this block was applied unduly, because the alleged reason "This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.", but I didn't use the accounts confirmed by the CheckUser that blocked me, being [[User:Ju042007|Ju042007]] ([[User talk:Ju042007|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Ju042007|contribs]]) and [[User:Juan542c21|Juan542c21]] ([[User talk:Juan542c21|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Juan542c21|contribs]]), I only used these accounts on Commons and I didn't even edit using them here on enwiki. (I don't remember the password currently, and I believe that I didn't configure email for these accounts)

I understand that even though I didn't make use of these accounts here on this wiki, I shouldn't have created these two accounts, also for "breach of community trust" (which happened on Commons, and I see that also here) and I intend not to continue with these account creations, making it clear what my main account is, it is this "Juan90264" and I currently don't use another one besides from that.

In my previous request, "It will be necessary for you to list all other accounts you have used, anyone who is paying you, and all articles you have been paid to edit."; I'd like to make it clear that no one paid me to try to create these articles, and I was fixated on trying to get these articles created by seeking to contribute, but I now understand that I clearly shouldn't have insisted at the time, as the articles weren't complying [[WP:UGC]], and one of them at the time did not meet the requirements of [[WP:NMUSICIAN]].

I currently understand that I should have asked for help at the time and not insisted on my mistake, as I didn't understand how the rules of notoriety and of the sources used in the articles worked, but I currently understand part of these rules and I hope to be able to contribute, and if I have questions ask at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk]] or [[Wikipedia:Help desk]].
Sincerely, [[User:Juan90264|<span style="color:#0101DF; background:#01DFD7;">Juan90264</span>]] [[User talk:Juan90264|<span style="color:#01DF01;">(Talk)</span>]] 23:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |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=Hello. It's been two years since the lock performed on 30 de janeiro de 2020, and of my previous unlock request, and now I'm trying to request my unlock again. I was blocked for using sockpuppet, but I believe that this block was applied unduly, because the alleged reason "This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.", but I didn't use the accounts confirmed by the CheckUser that blocked me, being [[User:Ju042007|Ju042007]] ([[User talk:Ju042007|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Ju042007|contribs]]) and [[User:Juan542c21|Juan542c21]] ([[User talk:Juan542c21|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Juan542c21|contribs]]), I only used these accounts on Commons and I didn't even edit using them here on enwiki. (I don't remember the password currently, and I believe that I didn't configure email for these accounts)

I understand that even though I didn't make use of these accounts here on this wiki, I shouldn't have created these two accounts, also for "breach of community trust" (which happened on Commons, and I see that also here) and I intend not to continue with these account creations, making it clear what my main account is, it is this "Juan90264" and I currently don't use another one besides from that.

In my previous request, "It will be necessary for you to list all other accounts you have used, anyone who is paying you, and all articles you have been paid to edit."; I'd like to make it clear that no one paid me to try to create these articles, and I was fixated on trying to get these articles created by seeking to contribute, but I now understand that I clearly shouldn't have insisted at the time, as the articles weren't complying [[WP:UGC]], and one of them at the time did not meet the requirements of [[WP:NMUSICIAN]].

I currently understand that I should have asked for help at the time and not insisted on my mistake, as I didn't understand how the rules of notoriety and of the sources used in the articles worked, but I currently understand part of these rules and I hope to be able to contribute, and if I have questions ask at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk]] or [[Wikipedia:Help desk]].
Sincerely, [[User:Juan90264|<span style="color:#0101DF; background:#01DFD7;">Juan90264</span>]] [[User talk:Juan90264|<span style="color:#01DF01;">(Talk)</span>]] 23:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Template:Strong support I see no reason for the user to be blocked. He has not used any socks on this project and also does not do WP:UPE, just by viewing his edits in other projects you can see that this user is highly reliable. It seems to me that the user was just a newbie that didn't receive proper guidance, but after the block he learned with his mistakes and started to understand the policies of this project. Blocks is not punitive but pedagogical. It is worth noting that the user was also blocked in Commons and was unblocked by an administrator who decided to assume his good faith. Perfektsionist (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]