User talk:NotTfue123

Archives: no archives yet (create)

Hi NotTfue123! 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 Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

07:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GoldStar (April 4)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:GoldStar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GoldStar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Why are you tagging sock accounts? Praxidicae (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ProLink for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ProLink 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/ProLink 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. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't make any mistake, rather Praxidicae asked about my account which I had abandoned 10 years before.I am banned still, I want to do necessary edits to ProLink so please help. I am here to built wikipedia. NotTfue123 (Talk) 12:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your edits, I think it's reasonable for administrators to establish the status of your previous account before unblocking you. Please disclose your prior account. If you are uncomfortable doing so on-wiki, you may use the unblock ticket request system to send a private email. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:01, 9 April 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 his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24654 was submitted on Apr 09, 2019 13:19:24. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

 Yunshui ^雲_水!! The thing isn't that. I had good account standing account but I forgot it's username and password. But, I decided to make new account and contribute. Understand the problem. I would have done that but there is no chance that I can recover that account. I can to use my creativity, skills and talent which will contribute to make wikipedia more better. NotTfue123 (Talk) 13:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A full list of former administrators can be found at Wikipedia:Former administrators; perhaps that will jog your memory. We do not need your password, only your username. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yunshui is remember to write article on [1]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

NotTfue123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Not provided

Blocking administrator: not provided.

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Unblock

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).

NotTfue123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I remember myself to be user:DanMS and I anoymously used to edit an article Draft:CAA Health & Dental Insurance. Then, I, later on, get that the work I have done is under violation User:Aaron Brenneman who I think is now retired or may be in condition like me!! So, if I am not unblock!! That would be the serious problem because that may effect my WIKIPEDIAN Career.. User:Mabdul also indirectly helped me and so on. If I can recover my password, that would be best things. NotTfue123 (Talk) 15:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your claim of being User:DanMS is patently false. You have now been checkuser blocked as a sock of Gaurav456; I've revoked talk page access to prevent further time wasting. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 9 April 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 is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]