User talk:PleaseOrangeMike

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:PleaseOrangeMike/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! PleaseOrangeMike, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...getting up the 1800Approved page. My draft was deleted by "Diannaa" on 3 De 2016 at 1855 for a G8 reason. I'm sorry, I really don't know how to "talk" to her. I spent an hour trying to figure that out and got further lost. I'm now utterly lost - can someone help ? Sorry for my ignorance. All I want to do is put up that little page - thanks ! Cheers Ken

PleaseOrangeMike (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was moved to Draft:1800Approved, where it was deleted as unambiguous promotion. The G8 notification was because your sandbox was linking to the draft after it had been deleted. The admin you should be talking to can be reached by leaving a message at User talk:Shirt58. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Draft:1800Approved. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You stated at the Teahouse that you are an employee, but you have not yet made the required formal paid editing disclosure. Continuing to make conflict of interest submissions may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, thanks........I'd love to BUT how on earth do I do that (make the paid disclosure) ? I'm so lost in the Wiki code system.PleaseOrangeMike (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. —teb728 t c 08:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1800Approved (December 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:1800Approved and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it appears to impersonate another Wikipedia user. Users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is other disruptive behavior ever allowed. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. For best results, please read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 10 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not attempting to impersonate another user. I was attempting to use humour to help ease the difficult editing process of getting a page approved. I was simply appealing "Please Orange Mike - consider my changes", that was my innocent intention PleaseOrangeMike (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia has no sense of humour. Achieving an unblock is obviously not impossible, as your errors are in my opinion due to inexperience, not malice. You will need to change your username; to do this post another unblock request using {{unblock-un}}. Click on the blue link and follow the instructions. At the moment, while blocked, you cannot edit your user page. In your unblock request you will need either to commit to putting a clear statement on your userpage, in your own words, detailing exactly what you are editing as a paid editor, and for who you are doing it; or, alternatively, you must undertake not to edit anything relating to 1800Approved. One option or the other, but either way, do whichever you choose to do before doing anything else, or you risk the block being re-imposed. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:59, 12 December 2016 (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.

There may be slight delay in getting a new username - the software has been misbehaving recently. You will be informed if this is the case. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]