This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Retimuko (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Robinson, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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 . 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Lapablo (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you tagged 300 area for speedy deletion as having no content - it looked like it was meant to be a redirect. Why not just fix it? I've done so --DannyS712 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Sorry. I am just getting familiarized with twinkle. I realized it to be redirect but by then I had already tagged it. Thanks for your input. Will be more scrupulous next time. --Harryishere (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mann Robinson 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/Mann Robinson 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. Praxidicae (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this an attack page? And why are you going around reverting other people's AFC submissions? These actions make no sense. Have you ever had success with any of your deletion tags? I can find none. Please stop reviewing and policing other people's work which you clearly don't yet have enough experience to be able to do properly, and focus on building more experience with your own. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool Thanks for your valuable time and leaving your message in my talk page. I am extremely sorry as the category selection was wrong by me. I was supposed to select the A3. But before trying to elaborate and justifying my move, I must say I believed I have no wish to undermine the works of other editors. I have thought to help the project by putting back the obvious pages under AFC submission and thereby reducing the stress a bit while also getting familiar with the CSD criteria. I think my efforts were not welcome. I don't have any motive to cause any trouble to anyone here, I try to contribute like what others have been doing. Now, for my being unsuccessful about deletion requests, I accept that not all my deletion requests were impeccable, but these (case1), (Case2) and (case 3) three were accepted or is in the process of. Also, I didn't know that it is not advisable to tag CSD in an article which is under AFC. I will try to keep that in my mind. Anyway, its nice to have this excuse I rather say opportunity to have an exchange with you. --Harryishere (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In similar vein to the above, I have removed your speedy tag at Draft:James Horvath (pastor). The page is not overly promotional, but could possibly do with some adjustment. It's a bio draft and has been submitted for review. It should proceed to AfC accordingly and receive the proper consideration from accredited reviewers. Please do not interfere with the review system if you have not been accepted into the scheme and thus not received the tools that go with that. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleash, Hello, Thanks for your comment, though you don't seem to be happy with my actions. Obviously, I can respect your view regarding what you think a bio should be going through the AFC. I have seen some lines like " made up of people who come from 55 surrounding cities. Dr. Horvath has led the church through three building programs, the first being a million dollar project, the most recent being a 2.5 million dollar addition to an existing million dollar facility," which can very clearly justify why I tagged the article as overtly promotional. Anyway, without being contrary to your remark, I am ready to accept that my judgement may have flaws but I think I have done this so as to ease the obvious decline, which was already done by this time. I just have a small curiosity that I saw you have NPR, but you didn't review the page, would love to listen why it was so, if you don't mind. Also, I have already said that I don't have any wish to master over other works, I just wanted to be familiarized with the proper application of CSD. Also, I believed and knew that there is no bureaucracy in Wikipedia and I am possibly not allowed to do by virtue of rights which I am not supposed to do. Anyway, thanks for your comment and time. --Harryishere (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harryishere. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trumanshow69.
Message added 21:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MER-C 08:24, 7 August 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello MER-C, Can you please tell me for which edit specifically I have been considered as spamming? I have always been tried to remain scrupulous about the edits that I have made. If you kindly let me know the wrong edits by me, I promise not to repeat the same. Please unblock me. Harryishere (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Decline as stale only. You may make another request so long as you address the reason for the block and respond to the concerns given. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2020 (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 edit looks questionable. Just because someone recently died does not mean you can add unsourced claims. It looks like a statement you were given by someone who paid you to add it to the article. The only way you can edit for pay on Wikipedia is if you disclose publicly that you are doing so. See WP:PAID for more information. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do I seriously need to tell you which edits you made for SEO purposes or for payment? Quite the opposite - you need to tell us. MER-C 16:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anachronist, thanks for commenting, for the concerned edit, you can find the references here. I have read the book 'tista parer britanta' myself, may be the information can be modified to make it strictly at per WP:NPV but I will not hide my personal bias on the writer (I like his writing). For the tag insertion which you may ask, I have been experimenting a little (which was not right) to insert tag. You can search my edits, I haven't used tags before possibly, and thus was wishing to see how it works. It is very unfortunate how easily you cam make the claim of my being involved in 'paid edit'. I am feeling very un-welcomed here at wikipedia, which is making me feel low. I don't know if you will lift the block, but I am not feeling comfortable to face such allegations. Harryishere (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are tools we employ which makes the allegations plausible. I advise you to disclose what you have been contracted by another entity to edit, and what other accounts that you have used to make paid edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist & MER-C This is totally absurd. What I am getting is, firstly, you have tried to entangle me in some phony, orchestrated sockpuppet case, then you are alleging me for some fallacious paid editing. I have expressed multiple times to explain me the problem as I don't have any involvement into these. But you refrained yourselves from making yourselves clear and kept on making vague but decisive, vindictive comments. No doubt, you are greatly mistaken. But, there are more serious things, you have already crossed the limit by accusing this way against me. I have tried to maintain courtesy but you are using that as the weapon to berate me. This can not happen. Wikipedia occupies very small area in my life, but still it has some space and it (used to) means something to me, I don't have much greater involvement here, but I have many significant contributions in some neglected area of this vast project, but it is meaningless to mention here because you are very clearly solely interested to defame me, not listening what I am saying or trying to understand the logic and rationale associated . I can understand very well, why the situation of this encyclopedia is so pathetic, because of such incompetent administrators. Now, I have the following to state, kindly read them carefully:

I never have accepted payment for editing in wikipedia.

You are repeatedly accusing me of defamatory charges in spite of my making my actions very clear.

You are continuously insulting and abusing me by repeating similar vague, false accusations without any evidences.

I did not have any idea that wikipedia admins are provided with the power of Oracle and they have their supernatural 'tool' with which they can berate anyone else without any basis, just for the sake of harassment. I had heard some rumors about wikipedia sometimes back, I did not believe them, but the present situation is compelling me to be convinced. Also, please note this, I have always contributed here at Wikipedia with the same spirit of thousands of other ordinary editors (who are hard to notice but they do CONTRIBUTE significantly). If you are accusing me of paid edits, that will make those thousands of other wikipedians accused with the same and the basis of this project will be questioned. I can show a good number of my edits which made pages, information more accurate, presentable, but there is no use mentioning those. You are seeming to be convinced that I am involved in malpractices, which gesture is itself something which made me feel greatly disturbed (I know it does not mean anything to you), but I am considering your such stubborn apparent meaningless actions as an deliberate attempt to defame, berate and harass me. As I said, I am not a very active editor of Wikipedia, but I always had a wish to be part of this project, but your gesture is making me rethink about the same, though I am trying to think your behavior is not reflecting what Wikipedia's image is, but I am afraid I can not convince me otherwise. If you decide to keep me blocked, I have nothing to say further than the fact that it will be most unjust and inappropriate. Also, it is simply not acceptable that if I request to unblock me, you will insult me with false allegations. You simply can not do that be you administrator or anyone else here in Wikipedia. Only, if you keep me blocked for unjust reasons, Wikipdia will loose one of its honest editors and I will be deprived of some significant contributions which I had planned but could not make due to time constraint. Also, for your information I do have a decent job and good source of earning, so I don't need wikipedia or anything similar to use for earning.

Regards.--Harryishere (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have only a single account, that is Harryishere. All the other accounts that I see in the SCI are not known to me as I told before. I never receieved compensation for my activities in Wikipedia. Please unblock me. Harryishere (talk) 9:54 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Technical evidence shows that you are the same as those other users in abuse of our sockpuppetry policy. This conspiracy of a "planted" investigation meant to "defame" you without proof is absurd. only (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2020 (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.

I thought to come back after somedays and seek forgiveness. I thought my explotion corssed some limits so it was not just. Sorry, I was wrong. I see sockpuppeting template! Great. What else you have to defame me? May I know the main problem here? I have said several times, this is the only account that I use when I edit Wiki, that too occassionally. May I know why I am facing this (I am asking this third time)? I do not know either of ChayanSen nor User:Wikier007 nor AranyaPathak nor Msgelhorn nor Hidolasw. Who are they? Why are you attaching these accounts with my five years old account? If they are my other accounts, can you tell me, why ^[1] Anomaly17, GSS, RoddemanDennis and Pinakpani are not my sockpuppets too? I said I will not request for unblock if I am defamed, but is there anything left to be defamed more? I had joined wikipedia five years, and you are attaching silly recent accounts like ChayanSen, Wikier007, Msgelhorn, AranyaPathak, Hidolasw with my accounts? Especially this disputed user AranyaPathak, are you serious? It is clear like a daylight, this is a planted sock puppet investigation, without any proof. This is a mess, please clean this up and detach all these silly accounts from my only account harryishere and please unblock me. Also, I don't know why some of you have gotten the wrong impression I have been compensated for my activity in Wikipedia, its totally wrong. I want my wikipedia account back. Please, unblock me. Harryishere (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article College Square Swimming Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harryishere. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Golbari".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harryishere. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "CarSwitch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harryishere. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SpaceNtime".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harryishere. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Amanda Schochet".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]