User talk:GermanKity

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chaunty Spillane 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/Chaunty Spillane 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.

... discospinster _talk 18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GermanKity. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• If you're just a newer editor and just happened to choose what was unfortunately an article with a bit of a controversial history, I recommend holding off on creating new articles and work on getting more familiar with Wikipedia for the time being. If you are someone who was asked to create the article be aware that you can still edit with a COI, you just need to be transparent about this and make sure to know policy very, very well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely Not.GermanKity (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi and apologies, at the same time you were nominating this for AfD, I was also moving the article title from all caps so the original AfD might now be redundant as the all caps title was deleted. Sorry for the inconvenience. JW 1961 ^Talk 12:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JW1961, Thank You for your message. Your Move from AMITAVA NAG to Amitava Nag is absolutely correct. I forgot to redirect it before nominate it for AFD. Thanks Again. :) GermanKity (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

First and foremost: ALL of the information was VERIFIED in the sources given in the footnotes, and ALMOST ALL of the information was additionally VERIFIED in a reliable and credible primary source - APKMirror FAQ (please study the footnotes carefully!)! I consider this source to be reliable as it provides the basis for information about the site's goals, procedures and relationships with Android Police.

Second: THERE ARE NO MORE RELIABLE, INDEPENDENT sources in English! There are pages left (it seems UNACCEPTABLE for use on Wikipedia) like: https://www.slant.co/options/7899/~apkmirror-review, https://greasyfork.org/sv/scripts/33005-direct-download-from-google-play and https://www.saashub.com/compare-apkmirror-vs-capterra!

Third: Of the sources I have used, the following have been used in English Wikipedia at least the number of times given: fossbytes - 70 techengage - 7 helpdeskgeek - 3 theverge - 509 uptodown - 11

The more often a source is used on English Wikipedia, the more relevant it is on Wikipedia. Otherwise, these sources must be removed from so many Wikipedia articles!

I believe that this article (in this version) is suitable for publication. --Failure9x (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Failure9x, The page you created is an advertisement and references you provided are self published and not reliable. Please read WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. I would suggest you to add more reliable references and remove promotional tone. I can see you already have submitted the draft. Please have patience and other editors will review your draft and if they finds it as per Wikipedia Guidelines it will be accepted. GermanKity (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @GermanKity: I gave you many arguments in the message, and you (not only you) wrote back to me casually. So I will write in stages to get an answer to my every argument from you. So: are the pages: fossbytes, theverge and uptodown unreliable even though they have been used in english wikipedia 70, 508 and 11 times respectively? Additionally, the last page is already in this Wikipedia article as one of the third-party app stores for over 4 years! --Failure9x (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi GermanKity, thanks for contribution but i wanna know what kinda sources i should add in refern. for proving that this artist is real celebrity? because he is punjabi celebrity his all newspaper articles, critic's articles all are in punjabi language. if foreigner aren't able to read punjabi then what i need to do? should i translate them in english? or something else.? guide me i'm new contributer and i wanna learn how to keep things stable and right.

Reesashukla (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Reesashukla:, a deletion discussion is already in the process and i can see you are participating there. If you think the subject is notable enough you are free to put your opinion there and Please wait for the Consensus.GermanKity (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@GermanKity:

Moments ago, a high-ranking Wikipedia administrator linked Berdia Sadeghi's page to the wiki But to your surprise, you tagged my page and tagged it. I'm sorry for this your mistake. I suggested and submitted many resources for this page, but you did not pay any attention. In general, I will visit your creation pages and tag them if needed. Because you did not get the new Bardia Sadeghi page at all, or I have friends on Wikipedia who will take care of this. You did not respect the opinion and work of the CEO of Wikipedia Europe. I ask you to refrain from getting to know me.I just have to say that you ruined my article to which I gave 23 sources.mohammad (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you are connected with the subject. And your article looks like an advertisement. I would suggest you to submit the draft for review.GermanKity (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@GermanKity:

You are bothering me. I tried to register this page for 48 hours, but you are annoying. I will report to the central Wikipedia of the United States. Be sure.mohammad (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. He tags my pages without jets and does not answer my questions about why you are destroying the pages. In general, I decided to declare his page dangerous. Corrupts pages several times. And it does not do anything special on Wikipedia mohammad (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mohammadhoshyar. I noticed that you recently removed content from https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikifreehand.com/en/User:GermanKity without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. He tags my pages without jets and does not answer my questions about why you are destroying the pages. In general, I decided to declare his page dangerous. Corrupts pages several times. And it does not do anything special on Wikipedia mohammad (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mohammadhoshyar:, Please stop sending warning notification. Do not take an article as personal. This behavior indicates, either you connected with the subject or you got some financial stake. GermanKity (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@GermanKity::

Hello. Dear user, why did you delete the page? Well, you increased the resources in the participation mode. But you should not delete the page. In Wikipedia, everyone sources on different pages. But you deleted my pages twice. Know this too: Mohammad Kazemi is an Olympic and world champion, and all the fighters in the world know him. Why are you deleting the page? I suggest you increase the number of resources on Wikipedia pages. And do not delete my pages or those of other people. Thank you and I will increase the number of Mohammad Kazemi page resources to 70. Thanks.mohammad (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mohammadhoshyar is blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing and personal attack.GermanKity (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi dear, This page should not be speedily deleted because Khan Sir is a prominent personality in India and a recent controversy is going in country about his real name and his remarks on religious groups. Many organizations and group of peoples protesting against and in favor of this person due to this it is necessary to bring relevant and current information in front of people through an encyclopedia article Okpty (talk)

Hi, please allow me to complete the article before you decide if it can be moved to draft or not. Can you please explain why you think the subject is not notable? Vloskim Kramář (talk)

Hi Vloskim Kramář, This is not my intention to unpublish your article but your article is a piece of advertisement. I would suggest you to submit it for review via draft process and let it be reviewed by other editors. GermanKity (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

, - Your statement aren't consistent. In my talk page you mentioned the article may not pass general notability and in your talk page, you are saying its a piece of advertisement (really?). Are you sure what you're doing? Vloskim Kramář (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Treedom, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Treedom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vloskim Kramář (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Vloskim Kramář, i am assuming a good faith for you. I am not against to publish any of your article. Just wanted to say please do not break any of Wikipedia's guideline. And please stop sending direct 4th level warning messages here. GermanKity (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is about repeated draftification of an article. You moved Dr. Cándido Pérez (2021 TV series) twice. I agree with the first move to draft space, because the article was not ready for article space. I also recognize that you may not have known that moving a page from article space to draft space twice is move-warring and is disruptive. See Repeated draftification. If an editor moves a page into article space again after it has been draftified, a reviewer may leave the page in article space or nominate it for deletion. I realize that you were trying to do the right thing, and did the wrong thing in the process. Don't move a page to draft space twice again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, Thank you for your notification. It is my mistake and My apologies for this. GermanKity (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry too much - I've inadvertently done the same thing myself. Deb (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Yesterday you moved the article about Solita to speedy deletion because of "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The documentation says that "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So even though you think it is promotional it should not be deleted as the subject is notable. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There were 42 references on the article and only 2 of them were company internal. There's also a Wikipedia article about the company in Finnish, started on 2010. I was asking you to tell about the reasons behind your decision on that articles talk page but as it's now gone I'm reasking here. You can see an early version of the article on my sandbox.Jjanhone (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

== Deletion review for Solita (company) ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Solita (company). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Still doubt on WP:NPOV. Previously, The article was deleted under G11 and that is correct. I assume a good faith on other Wiki editors. I am not against the page creation. You should avoid the promotional tone in the article. And submit it for review so that other editors could review it. GermanKity (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi GermanKity, Please move Hipla Technologies page I created to draftspace because I intend to improve. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Let deleting admin decide whether it should be keep or delete.GermanKity (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Himani Sahani, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey GK, Looks like we both are trying to either draftify this or speedy this. But the creator seem to be persistent! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, Yes, you are correct. It seems like the user breaking Wiki guidelines. He is trying to publish an article of a non notable subject that will count as a promotion on Wikipedia. GermanKity (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@GermanKity:

Hi GermanKity,

Thank you so much for your review and updates and I would look into it and get the required things done and submit them for review. Mellontikos (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if you can help in getting the article move to main space. Let me know. Thank you. Mellontikos (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellontikos: Please don't use the {{helpme}} template when you're asking for help from a specific editor. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Devendra Satam, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curbon7 (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this belongs on the Music list, not the "artists" one which is for visual artists only (see the note on the page). Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, Thank you for the notification. Noted the point. Can you please teach me how can i add a new 'sort' in an already existing afd such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idress.GermanKity (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just add it at the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Seddon ^talk 23:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Seddon. GermanKity (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm delete this page Mr. GermanKity because I quit wikipedia I never edited (I'm not angry I'm serious not angry) Scott Fortnite (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your delete this page (Draft:David P Smith) because I quit wikipedia (I'm not angry I'm serious not angry) Scott Fortnite (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Please you don't move draft again because I quit wikipedia (I not angry I'm serious not angry) bye bye Scott Fortnite (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again User:Scott Fortnite, i never against to do the right edits on Wikipedia under its guidelines and policies. I would encouraged you to do non promotional edits which should justify with reliable references. But it seems like you are blocked already for having multiple accounts.GermanKity (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is well written. And I don't have any financial benefits from the subject. If you don't like the article. You can opt it for AFD. Let it go through AFD process. Idhachu (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

First disclose your financial stake than submit it for review and let the other editors do this job. GermanKity (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any financial benefits, dude! Idhachu (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your statement is completely wrong. Idhachu (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC) GermanKity, On what statement or grounds you are saying the article is paid? Please share it with me.

The article before my edits had incorrect grammar, detail which was well sourced, although unrelated to the topic at hand and subjective, and contained unsourced objectively incorrect information related to human embryological development. Please review the diffs of my edit and my specific notes for my edits before reverting. Thanks! Sideriver84 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You may correct the grammar but removing the entire content that is well sourced is not in good faith.GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well sourced information isn't always relevant information. The article's talk page mentions the existence of subjective commentary which needs to be removed.Sideriver84 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Please, could you tell me what is the problem with this article? If you mark a specific concern, I will try to supplement the article and / or bring in new resources. I didn’t really discover promotional content, but I’m not an expert on the subject. Csókay is a noted neurosurgeon, I guess the article meets the criteria of notabilitiy. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The content is promotional. GermanKity (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello GermanKity, its very sad to notice an article StarTele Logic is propsed for Speedy Deletion. If that is not meeting the criteria, please move or take it for proposed deletion for voting. I have two other articles created today, kindly have a look at that too. I believe, I am putting my maximum effort to make the articles accurate and referenced. Thanks : Orator1989 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Orator1989, the other articles you created, are justifying the notability criteria of Wikipedia. But the StarTele Logic is an advertisement of a non notable company which lacks significant coverage that are independent of the subject.GermanKity (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please move it to drafts? Orator1989 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed a previous version of draft of it. If you can move it to draft, it would be better. My efforts will at least stay and I will get a chance to improve it. Orator1989 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello GermanKity, Please review the Draft:Marinduque National High School. This draft was improved and now have an additional reliable citations. Thank you. 😊 Filipinotayo^talk 06:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, i can see you have added few citations. And submitted it for review. Now please have patience other reviewer will review the article soon.GermanKity (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you. But I just only wondering of your tagging as SPEEDLY DELETION on this before you made the moved action to draft space. Could you please advise me the reason of tagging? because it was categorized as {{{{School-stub}}}} . It's a friendly question only. Thank you 🙂. Filipinotayo^talk 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi GermanKity. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Rosguill for granting the New page reviewer permission. GermanKity (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I just translated from the Vietnamese Wikipedia article "Bộ Tư lệnh Vùng 3 Hải quân Nhân dân Việt Nam", which is an article in a series of articles about the 5 regional commands of the Vietnam People's Navy. STAIDCONTEXT (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

hi User:STAIDCONTEXT, Please provide some more citations from reliable, independent sources. The submit it for review. GermanKity (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that the {{undisclosed paid}} template you added to Renu Raj should also be accompanied by the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template on the talk page, preferably with an explanation. While I have semi-protected the article for now to discourage further disruption, I must say that the article history is not enlightening about how you came to the conclusion that the article should be tagged as having undisclosed paid contributions. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist, Thanks for your notification. I noted your points. But I can see the creator of the article (User:Idhachu is already blocked and now he is arguing from an ip address:27.59.238.4 (again a suspected sock). He has also copy and paste the same message of Vandalism to four admins including you, please check here.GermanKity (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you have moved my page on Basuki Dasgupta to the Draft AfC submissions. I would like to know if video interviews of the subject detailing certain facts like place of birth, education etc. can be used as a reference. Thanks Harshavardhan deuskar (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harshavardhan: Your draft Draft:Basuki Dasgupta is not yet ready to move into mainspace. It needs more citations from ] about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was doing what was required of me, and that was to translate the Spitzmauer article to English from Czech. I have not finished and I was getting to doing that.

Hi, after I conferred your NPP trial run, an editor sent me an email containing circumstantial evidence that you may have been engaged in undisclosed paid editing. This is something that we need to resolve if you are to be considered for full NPP permissions. I intend to start a discussion regarding this at WP:COIN so that the editing community can weigh in, but I a) wanted to let you know in advance and b) was hoping that you could directly respond to the allegation (i.e. confirm or deny that you have engaged in editing for pay) before I open the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, I don't know who complaint you about me. But i would like to let you know that i am nowhere connected to anyone and not doing contributions on Wikipedia for any financial stake. I am doing Wikipedia editing for my own interest. May be the complainer has some mis-understanding. Please clarify more that where i am connected with someone? Just for my information. GermanKity (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor noted your creation of an article for Chaunty Spillane, could you explain how you came to write about this topic, and why you chose not to participate in the AfD discussion where it was ultimately deleted? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, Thank you for your reply. Though i have alredy declined my COI on 18 May 2021 on my Talk page but the concern is raised again so i am explaining here in detail. I picked Chaunty's profile randomly as i have interest in watching movies and i thought she is a notable actress as she has worked in various movies and web series (approximately 20). But later when the article was nominated for afd i came to know that she had a minor role in all films and this was the reason i did not participate in afd. For a moment, please assume if i was connected with the subject, i should participate in afd but i didn't because i am aware Wikipedia notability guidelines (for an actor) that it will be pointless to argue for a non-notable person. But i accept my mistake here that i didn't check notability of the subject in deep before creating the article. Please note: I also didn't try to re-create the article after its afd. Thank You. GermanKity (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you remember which of Spillane's works drew her to your attention? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, I am not sure the exact movie where she played a significant role but i tried to create her page according to the number of films where she worked. I found her work from here. GermanKity (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these answers do not inspire confidence that you were not engaged in UPE at the article in question. Consequently, I'm afraid that I cannot confer a renewal of NPP permissions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I created her page when i found she worked in notable films like Vault, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Ghostbusters (2016 film), Thoroughbreds and others. GermanKity (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy that explanation and have blocked you for undisclosed paid editing. You can follow the instructions on the block template to request an unblock from another administrator. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering if you might be able to assist me in moving Draft:Chris Moore (radio presenter) into my draft spaces, so I can submit it for publishing, I fear I might have created a new page and not realised it and would like to submit it first for reviewing first, just to be on the safe side.

Thanks very much Mrluke485 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Happy Dad, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)