User talk:Christachrista

November 2018

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for the edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christachrista (talk • contribs) 2018-11-15T09:05:43 (UTC)

Even you claimed as a volunteer and not an employee of PCCW/HKT, please do not use promotional tone to update article, and do not introduce external link in lede. Also, please don't tag you major edit as minor. Lastly, sign you talk post with ~~~~ Matthew hk (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, we don't c&p content directly from annual report http://www.smartoneholdings.com/about/investor/financial_reports/english/2017_2018_annual.pdf, which is what you did in the lede of SmarTone. Matthew hk (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello Christachrista. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to PCCW, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Christachrista. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Christachrista|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Matthew hk (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Christachrista. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page PCCW, 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to PCCW, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

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 guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christachrista. Thank you. Matthew hk (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christachrista. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Trying to make contents interesting and correct and avoid those so call vandalism but the contents got reverted and account got blocked by some people and I hope they are not got paid to do so. Nowaday wikipedia is only for a group of people who try to control the medium. That's why public are losing their interests in reading wikipedia. And public contributors who have the heart to make the contents better and precise get frustrated. I have to spend time to deal with all these case that makes me become so depressed! I hope wikipedia will revise their policy and help the real people Christachrista (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

SORRY about all the inconvenient caused, i understood that i made serious problem and i will not do that again, i just think i can edit and add things by my interest. After reading the faq and other materials, I knew i did wrong. Please dont block me again, and i promise i will not do again. For the Ad tone, i will try to do more communciate with other ppl here. once again sorry again Christachrista (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

1. i understand i use diff/ multiple account to edit. *#i will not continue or do it again, *#i am so native and will be a good constributions instead, pls forgive me. i will continue to learn and be a good boy Christachrista (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Ah, self-deprecating sarcasm - always a guaranteed way to get someone to unblock you. Talkpage access revoked; if you;d like to make a serious appeal, you can use UTRS. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:58, 10 January 2019 (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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #23742 was submitted on Jan 11, 2019 03:12:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]