Welcome!Edit

Hello, Treianlatri! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 15:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

A page you started (Daniel Wallock) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Daniel Wallock, Treianlatri!

Wikipedia editor Robertgombos just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice refs!

To reply, leave a comment on Robertgombos's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Robertgombos (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Treianlatri (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Kathleen QuiglyEdit

Hey, I'm a little confused as to why you tagged Kathleen Quigly as needing refimprove? All the paragraphs are cited, primarily from the Dictionary of Irish Biography? Thanks, Smirkybec (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. The article is entirely referenced from a single source except for the last paragraph. It will be better if the source is accessible online or if you could improve it with more sources. Regards, --Treianlatri (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding what that maintenance tag means, it is for articles that are not sourced or referenced which this is. You can argue it could be improved with more citations, including online ones, but that is a different matter. Smirkybec (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Wallock for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Wallock 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/Daniel Wallock 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. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Harvest Exchange for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harvest Exchange 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/Harvest Exchange 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. scope_creep (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

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 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Treianlatri (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was blocked as SPAM/advertising only account which is not true. I have several other contributions and my last edit was to move the Draft:Anjana_Reddy to WP:MAINSPACE. I also disclosed my COI on the article's talk page[1]. The article in question is not advertising and I genuinely believe it meets the notability guidelines. I think Wikipedia editors should not have any prejudice against paid edits or editors. Please, unblock me because I do not make spam edits only or use my editing rights for advertising purpose. I always disclose whenever I have a COI and I will always make constructive edits if I am unblocked. I am not here solely for spamming. I am aware of Wikipedia's Goals and I will abide by WP:COPO. Treianlatri (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree that "SPAM/advertising only account" was an exaggeration. However, the fact remains that you have edited in ways which are clearly promotional and which you are apparently unable to see as promotional, which casts doubt on your likelihood of avoiding doing the same again. Also, it is true that "paid editing" is tolerated provided it is kept within certain bounds, but you appear to interpret that as meaning that there are no problems with creating articles because businesses pay you to do so in order to use Wikipedia to publicise themselves, which is not the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Were you connected to, or were paid for the other articles you created (Blueground, Harvest Exchange, Daniel Wallock)? MER-C 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I was paid for Blueground only. I was not aware of the paid disclosure policy at that time. I was not paid for Harvest Exchange or Daniel Wallock. Treianlatri (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Anjana_Reddy looks very much like paid-editing to me. You're claiming otherwise? OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
No, you are right. Please, see my disclosure[2]. Treianlatri (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@MER-C: could you please re-consider your block? I promise you won't find my edits as advertising. Treianlatri (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Your clients hired you create articles about themselves, which is promotional irrespective of content. Wikipedia readers expect reliable, independent, encyclopedic information. Native advertising and sponsored content are none of those things. MER-C 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I got your point but there are many noteworthy topics for which no pages have been created yet. Please, understand that Paid editing is permissible in Wikipedia. There are many individuals who meet the notability criteria but either do not familiar with the Wikipedia or don't have time or expertise to request an article on them. This is why I put COI disclosure to make sure it goes through a review. If you think the page I created doesn't meet the notability criteria or a blatant advertising then I will be happy to nominate it for AFD myself, if I am unblocked. Treianlatri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Treianlatri (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I do understood that some of the edits were promotional. There is no strict written rules for editing perspectives. This is why dispute resolution notice boards are there. A sentence may seem promotional to you but not to someone else. This can be resolved by a consensus but not by blocking. I humbly request you to re-consider my appeal as I still believe I should be given a second chance. Thank you.Treianlatri (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim 11:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Treianlatri (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was blocked as "SPAM/advertising only account" which is not entirely true. I have made constructive edits as well. I will not make any spam/advertising/promotional edits or cause any disruption through my edits. Please, unblock me so I can contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you.Treianlatri (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @JJMC89: for how long? I have been waiting since 2 September 2019! Treianlatri (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)