User talk:Wiki-drapers

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here - Not at all valid reason for blockingWiki-drapers (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are accused of violating WP:SOCK. Violating WP:SOCK is indeed a legitimate reason to be blocked. Yamla (talk) 16:30, 21 December 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.

You may or may not be interested to know that two people saying basically the same ting on the talk page of a promotional article nominated for deletion will carry no more weight with an administrator considering whether to delete than would one person saying it. Therefore abusing multiple accounts to pretend to be two different people independently expressing the same view would not work even if the administrator in question thought it was two people. Also, I have no idea why you think such an attempt at deception isn't a valid reason for blocking: of course it is. JBW (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Hello, Wiki-drapers,

Have you created more sockpuppets? Because if you have, you will receive a much more severe block for a repeated offense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz,

I can assure you that is certainly not the case. The last incident was taken seriously. Wiki-drapers (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Aman Singh Thind, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Wiki-drapers. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Wiki-drapers|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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m not affiliated with the above mentioned individual. Wiki-drapers (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-drapers. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]