Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Angel Daza has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Angel Daza was changed by 1900toni (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.965627 on 2016-09-09T19:51:10+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1900toni! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Todd Anthony Tyler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

1900toni (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What kind of promotion was that you banned me for. I have not even warned about it? Ray McCort page was written neutrally and biography was notable. Reviewer admin please look into this matter. Please restore the page to check for yourself if it meets Wikipedia standard or not. 1900toni (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Block lifted per the below discussion Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admins! I recently created couple of pages and they were deleted without even speedy tag or anything. My problem is not that they are deleted and I'm worried for them, the problem is Ray McCort page was notable biography, page was cited with reliable news references and OTAA was a notable startup Australian company page that too was cited with reliable references. Admin gave a reason that it's "spam/advertisement" and he BANNED me without single warning. I request to please look into this matter and restore the pages for proof-checking. Thanks! 1900toni (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected OOTA to OTAA so that the link will work for admins. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This does seem like a very hasty block. I don't see any outright spam that could lead to an immediate block, nor a single warning that the content of their edits was problematic. Nick-D, as the blocking admin, can you explain why an indefinite block with no warning was needed in this case?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Because all the editor's contributions have been spammy, and strongly indicate that they are editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest. The OTAA article was pure spam about what appears to be a non-notable firm (as an Australian who owns a fair few ties, I feel confident in saying that being "one of Australia's largest online necktie retailers" isn't a good claim to fame, even if true), and their other articles appear to be biographies of people of at best marginal notability with no apparent common links between them. The Ray McCort article did not strongly indicate why the subject was notable, and its content has strong similarities to a previous - though much less well structured and written - article on this person which was written by a single purpose account and rapidly speedy deleted in May. I note also that the account's editing prowess is not typical of that of a genuinely new Wikipedia user (confidently and correctly using tables, sandboxes, reference formatting, images, etc, straight away). Taken together, this is strongly indicative of undisclosed for-pay editing rather than an individual following their interests. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What "spammy contribution" exactly are you pointing to? Since when are you blocking people just on the supposition of term "conflict of interest"? Don't we have a right on Wikipedia to be given a warning or some sign that we are going against the Wikipedia policies? Talking about the pages I created; OTAA page's each cited with these sources: Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Financial Review Australia, AliBaba.com and couple of other good ones to verify that its notable tie making online retailer company. The product was being used by celebrities having wikipedia pages, and that was cited. Moving on to Ray McCort; you saying it doesn't indicate any notability? Well the guy is a Hollywood film actor (professional pilot) working in the field since 1990's, appeared in American Pie 2, Blade and other star studded films (see IMDb). Are you concerned about page's notability and references or the "similarities" with the previous deleted version? For your kind info, I didn't upload no image, they were already there on Wikipedia since ages. How you come to conclusion so easily that new editors edit like "sh**" and can't create pages? That's so arrogant of you and I'm disappointed of a Wikipedia admin like you. If you can "read people minds" that they are paid editors or whatever then I would like to create a Wikipedia page for you too. 1900toni (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you do get unblocked, please stop spamming Ray McCort into film articles. Per WP:FILMCAST, we don't credit minor, unnamed characters in cast lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I agree with the other admins here that this block was unnecessarily punitive. It is generally good admin practice to only delete articles that a third party has placed a speedy tag on, unless the page's very existence causes problems (eg: vandalism, attack pages and copyvios). Otherwise "speedy" just technically means less than the standard 7 days for a full AfD debate. OTAA doesn't look particularly spammy to me (if it was I'd expect to read something like "OTAA brings the fashionable modern man to the future of technology, and provides critically acclaimed and sophisticated blah blah blah") and I think it clears the bar for A7. I would recommend undeleting it and sending it to AfD. I looked at Ray McCourt and again I find the article does not meet the CSD criteria as written in policy; I would also suggest undeleting it and starting an AfD debate. You might think that raising these two AfDs is a waste of time, but it's fairer because if they do get deleted, we will have a paper trail explaining why in depth. The problem with just wandering in and hitting the delete button is you must ensure you comply with policy to the letter, otherwise the user will read the policy and conclude you deleted something wrongly. I would also throw into the mix that the MediaWiki software is free to download and people can learn formatting syntax and templates in their own time, or users might have been editing as IPs for some time - so coming armed with the technical syntax knowledge can be okay. It's only when they appear with a full knowledge of Wikipedia-specific policies, especially ANI and Arbcom, that suspicion should be aroused. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this block Ponyo and Ritchie. As two reviewing admins now disagree with me here, I've just lifted the block. I don't intend to restore either of the articles in question (and especially not the OTAA one), but have no objections if you do. Best wishes for your future editing 1900toni, but please do take the time to review WP:N and WP:COI if it is relevant. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTAA is now at AfD in the usual place - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OTAA. 1900toni, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions carefully before contributing to the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all admins, reviewers, commenters for looking into the matter and the nominator admin for re-considering the decision. Now that OTAA is being passed through AfD, I'm satisfied even if it results in deletion. Atleast its the right way. @Ritchie333:, I humbly request for restoring Ray McCort and passing it through AfD process, want to see the neutral public decision on it. Thanks again! 1900toni (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a slightly different approach and moved it to a draft - Draft:Ray McCort. You can improve the article here at your leisure without any threat of deletion, then click on the "submit for review" button to get a second opinion. If the review passes, the draft will be moved back to mainspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from WittyFeed 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The fact that Facebook has blocked WittyFeed as a spam site is clearly referenced to a source and should not be deleted without explanation. McGeddon (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Keith Gill, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Toni. Can I ask if you're being paid to edit Wikipedia, in any way? --McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @McGeddon:, I'm a neutral editor, I have no concern in paid editing and don't know how paid editing is possible? I make edits where I think are required and create the missing pages of notable biographies. If you have any issue with my editing, please do let me know. Thanks! 1900toni (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is where somebody pays you to make an edit to Wikipedia. WP:PAID explains it. When you've read that and can understand that it's possible, can you confirm that you're not doing it? Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Inter-Services Intelligence.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1900toni. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Todd Anthony Tyler, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the ((request edit)) template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1900toni,

Thanks for patrolling new pages, Wikipedia appreciates your help. Please, do not tag articles that makes a credible claim of significance with WP:CSD#A7 as you did at Funke Opeke. I have reverted your edit. Thanks. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Olaniyan Olushola: thanks for letting me know! Should I ask which tag does it fit in as BLP has no notability at all. 1900toni (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Lemongirl942. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kismat 2, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please slow down a bit and explain what were you trying to do here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, how this page meets notability criteria? This biography does not show any significance. "She served as adviser at Transcorp and chief operating officer of NITEL for a brief period". Does this make the page notable? 1900toni (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Jbhunley. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jeneil Williams, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 20:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Jbhunley. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Oscar R. Cauldwell, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 20:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooppss.. Sorry. I misread a quote as a copyvio. Sorry. Jbh^Talk 20:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No issue! 1900toni (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Naela Quadri Baloch, 1900toni.

Unfortunately Lemongirl942 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The page asserts enough significance and has quite a few references, though badly formatted. I urge you to be careful while patrolling and read our guidelines properly first.

To reply, leave a comment on Lemongirl942's talk page.

Hello,

I am writing to notify you that I have removed your nomination for deletion of 1000 Arms. Please note that such nominations are meant for "uncontroversial" deletions in which no objection is anticipated, and that deletion should be used as a last resort. In this case, the article in question describes the upcoming 15th album of a notable band, Blue Rodeo, whose first 14 albums were notable and were linked to the article in question. If you believe the page requires additional information to establish notability, please consider the use of the "notability" tag rather than immediately proposing deletion.

Thanks for your involvement in Wikipedia. 78.69.163.232 (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 220 of Borg. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Parul Sharma (singer). Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 13:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1900toni.
* Note that I am merely advising you of this investigation as it appears you may have not been formally notified. 220 of ^Borg 13:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@220 of Borg: thank you for the notification. 1900toni (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parul Sharma (singer) 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/Parul Sharma (singer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that this page should not be deleted on Wikipedia. Its important for people to get information about it on Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangi derick (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can contest the deletion here. 1900toni (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are my suppose to do in order to keep the page valid and not deleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangi derick (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I requested for its deletion, you asking me how to keep it? That's funny! 1900toni (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request should be removed. It should not be removed or deleted. Why did you request that the page should be removed or deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangi derick (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The User group does not relate to Wikipedia English in any way. Even if it does, the page should be moved to Wikipedia: Wikimedia Community User Group Cameroon. 1900toni (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, move the page then to Wikipedia: Wikimedia Community User Group Cameroon. Thanks and does it solve the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangi derick (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have moved the page already to Wikipedia: Wikimedia Community User Group Cameroon. So you can delete the page on Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangi derick (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nscharan007 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. —SpacemanSpiff 06:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1900toni. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Ray McCort".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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)) 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 15:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]