User talk:Elandroid

Speedy deletion nomination of Digital Energy Technologies[edit]

Hello Elandroid,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Digital Energy Technologies for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meridien conferences[edit]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Hi, and thank you for the info. I'm not going to whine about the deletion, but after you deleted it i removed some words and statements and tried to stablish a more neutral point of view. I guess the "notability" requirement is beyond doubt since these are international conferences with many important and relevant people. So please check the changes i've made (since the article is deleted i don't know if you can still read it), and if you still think i'm making this as some sort of advertising or promotion, you can point out to me what sectons to improve, change or delete so the article stays neutral. Thank you.

Where have you made these changes? Deb (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'me upload it to my sandbox, please take a look here Elandroid (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences, 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, product, group, service or person 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Canvas Infotech for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canvas Infotech 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/Canvas Infotech 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. Shirt58 (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

Hi Elandroid! I gather that you may have been doing some editing recently where you have a conflict of interest. Generally, Wikipedia strongly discourages people from doing so, especially where the editing relates to advocacy. If you can, it would work well if you were to follow current best practise, which is to recommend changes on the talk pages of the articles concerned rather than make them yourself. But if this isn't possible, it would be great if you were to acknowledge when you have a conflict of interest on the talk pages - that way we know that everything is upfront and transparent, which helps a lot. If you would like to know more, the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is a really good resource that may assist. - Bilby (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your message. I think I don't have a conflict of interest per se, my main problem is that some sources are not viewed as reliable. I have no intention of promoting companies or anything like that, if you check my contributions you will see that i've made many for artists, music bands or personalities. Nevertheless i will try to talk on the talk pages instead of editing myself. Thanks again. Elandroid (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences[edit]

The article Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conferences and TNS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

advice[edit]

I have noticed that many of the articles you are writing are on relatively small companies and organization. Such articles have often been the special concern of individual paid editors or groups of paid editors. I call your attention to WP:COI, and remind you that if you are doing paid editing for organizations, this is a particularly strong form of Conflict of Interest.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. Though this form of editing is not absolutely prohibited, it is considered best practice to use WP:Articles for Creation.

For further information see our practical guide to conflict of interest, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the incipient article Doublju as seen here [1] looks pretty not-notable and spammy. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article not finished, that is why is on my sandbox. Elandroid (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much are you being paid for this one? Logical Cowboy (talk)

That's none of your concern, many jobs are paid :) Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) I work by the Wikipedia rules, and when some of my work is deleted I improve it, if it's deleted when it's no more improveable I don't upload it again and so on, so please, do your work as I do mine. But just one comment: treat me as you treat any other editor, not because i'm paid for it my research is less acurate or my methods less valid, in fact sometimes is the reverse. Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) Elandroid (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't work by the Wikipedia rules. What about WP:SOCK (see below)? What about WP:COI? I haven't noticed you declaring COI on any of your paid edits. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the only proof against Clamad was that it used my same IP, please come to my house to see if there are two persons in my house, i can perfectly pay another person to help me, can't a friend help me even for free? Suckpuppetry is made for when people use many multiples accounts to benefit their own. As you can see i only had that one since i only needed help in that article. Why am i even bothering to explain this to you? On the other hand COI notification is just a recomendation not an obligation. Elandroid (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

I've blocked your User:Clamad‎ account as a sockpuppet - creating alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny is not permitted. I've decided not to block this account, but I strongly recommend that you stick to this one in the future, as otherwise we won't be left with any options. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Estrem, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Doublju[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Doublju requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doublju, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cerritos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guo Jian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Patriot and Chinese propaganda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Doublju for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doublju 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/Doublju 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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences 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/Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences 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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wah Wah 45s for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wah Wah 45s 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/Wah Wah 45s 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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wah Wah 45s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kings Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daniel Estrem for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Estrem 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/Daniel Estrem 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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stars In Stereo for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stars In Stereo 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/Stars In Stereo 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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating and misusing multiple accounts.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bilby (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I raised this before I had hoped that you wouldn't continue to create new accounts to evade scrutiny. I can understand the problems of being under scrutiny with your edits, but trying to hide your editing through multiple accounts is a significant problem. As I said then, I was willing to leave this account unblocked and to allow you to continue to edit under the proviso that you only worked with this account, but it seems that you have continued to create multiple accounts. On those grounds I find I have little choice but to block the socks and your main account. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account has not been used since March, this block right now makes no sense, besides where is the investigation? Is this because I was a paid editor? Do I remind you that that is not against Wikipedia rules? Elandroid (talk) 6:03 am, Today (UTC+1)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:30, 6 May 2014 (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.

To clarify, you haven't been blocked for paid editing. You've been blocked for using multiple undisclosed accounts to edit Wikipedia. In particular, User:Loschung itos and User:Vares 45, along with at least two other accounts. - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elandroid, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Donnie Park (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elandroid, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Donnie Park (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elandroid, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Donnie Park (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stars In Stereo listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stars In Stereo. Since you had some involvement with the Stars In Stereo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MSJapan (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of NAVGTR Awards for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NAVGTR Awards 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/NAVGTR Awards 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. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]