User talk:Positiveilluminati

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Positiveilluminati! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in

peacock terms

that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Try to also avoid the

REFBOMBING

or this may never pass. Instead, try to provide the three best sources and rewrite the whole article in a neutral way rather than promoting this person

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:Ramiz King 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:Ramiz King, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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 the submission 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 the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Positiveilluminati (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it okay if this article has 5 best resources link? Rather than 3? Positiveilluminati (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission appears to

independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability

of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Possibly notable but not ready for mainspace based on promotional tone. For example, do we have multiple reliable sources describing all of his professional ("Media Personality, Socialite, Entrepreneur, Producer, Actor, and Model")?

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:Ramiz King 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:Ramiz King, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- is the overall theme sounding promotional or just certain sections?

And do you mean to add more reliable sources? There is organic linking of abp live and all Positiveilluminati (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our

Thank you. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be halted I’m working on fixing article and I have requested editors to come help me and demonstrate what is promotional kind of writing and what not - pls give me a chance I’m a die hard fan and this would be a dream to come alive Positiveilluminati (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• 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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 19:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m writing about a subject I’m passionate about ? So why is it getting deleted? Positiveilluminati (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

None of the sources cited are reliable.

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:Ramiz King 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:Ramiz King, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

JavaHurricane 08:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are any of them reliable I searched online and abp Live was a reliable source and on the wiki search through archives it said all Essel groups publication is reliable? Pls correct me if not I’ll wait a few months before resubmitting Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABP live is an infamously bad and unreliable source, and is generally discouraged. IWMBuzz and Bollywood Life are also very unreliable, and the Yahoo article looks like

run-of-the-mill reporting from a tabloid. JavaHurricane 08:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Well the subject is due fir a press circuit around the India today and Indian express after covid restrictions. Will they be fine? What about Deccan herald or first post or statesman? I’m just confused cuz some of the Indian publications are not on the wiki reliability page Positiveilluminati (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Express, Deccan Herald, and possibly India Today may do. There's a lot else determining notability, however (see

WP:BIO) so I would like to first see the articles and check them against our criteria. JavaHurricane 09:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:COI please clearify that if you have that, rest all the articles you have been adding in that draft of Ramiz King, ARE purely PAID ARTICLES and are Puff pieces. Suryabeej (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OkY I’ll send you links, via here? One I found it says is a featured one I don’t know if that works https://www.deccanherald.com/brandspot/pr-spot/the-inspirational-journey-of-ramiz-king-contestent-of-mtv-love-school-s4-866310.html Positiveilluminati (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall wait for more organic ones before submitting again. Thank you Positiveilluminati (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That Deccan Herald piece is again a PAID article as it is clearly a PRESS RELEASE as you see PR SPOT section in the article. you cant use this at all.Suryabeej (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understood as I said, am I allowed to wait till he gains organic media coverage ? Positiveilluminati (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As

secondary sources which are independent of the subject. So press releases, interviews, etc. are ruled out. You indeed will have to wait for independent articles to be written on him in reliable sources. I'll advise you to wait six months from now before taking stock of the coverage situation. JavaHurricane 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

In the meantime, however, please do not leave the draft unedited but try to continue making gradual changes to it: please see

WP:G13. JavaHurricane 12:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Got it Boss. Positiveilluminati (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to know how come Ramiz fling Krissan Barretto has IWMBUZZ as her resources ? How come some artists have some non reliable sources Positiveilluminati (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists, we'll get to it presently. JavaHurricane 03:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/in-focus/040820/ramiz-king-is-the-young-star-of-television.html Positiveilluminati (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, it looks okay, but the promotional tone makes me uncomfortable, and I'll have to check if it is a paid article or not. It may not be so, but I feel I should ask someone more experienced. I will get back in some time. JavaHurricane 04:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool. It is very flowery types but that's how indian media is like Positiveilluminati (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I live in India myself. I feel that the Deccan article may be usable for notability, though I have some reservations (they are not urgent though). I'd like to see other sources first. JavaHurricane 15:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can reshare like this be considered reliable ? https://www.zee5.com/zee5news/ramiz-king-31-most-interesting-facts Positiveilluminati (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. JavaHurricane 14:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you JavaHurricane 🥰 Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please check the article sourcing now? I had found out Ramiz team is doing press circuit for his upcoming show so this only few relating sources I found - thank you. - Sneha Positiveilluminati (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for your approval Positiveilluminati (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.patrika.com/patrika-plus/afghanistan-has-a-special-identity-with-india-ramiz-king-6897889/ He is this a good source to use over the Indian express indulge? Pls share your expertise Positiveilluminati (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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 the submission 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 the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Positiveilluminati (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is this rejection because of sourcing? If so, can I use this than the Indian express indulge one as a main primary source? You can find it’s translation on google being shared by other publications.

https://www.patrika.com/patrika-plus/afghanistan-has-a-special-identity-with-india-ramiz-king-6897889/ Positiveilluminati (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Ramiz King

instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the

reliable source

, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the

the Teahouse

.

In particular, see and refer to

WP:GNG

for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

There is also a stub article now. Neither this draft nor the article

general notability

.

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:Ramiz King 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:Ramiz King, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey please let me know if it's been corrected now and I added a new reference? I'll keep adding new references as they come? As popularity if his growing as we speak Positiveilluminati (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this not notable he has a google knowledge panel it means he has been searched so much by fans and he is a significant person in Afghanistan by representing the first reality tv star in a war torn country this is special notability Positiveilluminati (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or

this category fits him, as he was a part of two major series? Positiveilluminati (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this article does meet notability as he is Afghanistan’s first reality tv star? Why would you state that he isn’t? I will just add this to the main forefront, also is the stub an approved one? Positiveilluminati (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Being a participant on a reality television show is not notable.

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:Ramiz King 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:Ramiz King, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being Afghanistan first reality tv star is notable? Positiveilluminati (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No it isn't (have a look at the requirements at
  WP:NACTOR). Dan arndt (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  How does Ramiz co stars deem as notable if reality participants arent notable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseer_Ali Positiveilluminati (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I still await your reply for my draft, I mentioned above the guidelines of notability? You haven’t replied? Why? Here is another source I found which makes him notable https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/amazed-to-see-the-industry-swiftly-bouncing-back-ramiz-101625923594824.html Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that applies to him, I’ll ask teahouse too Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Spinster300. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 18:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. IS THIS NOT ENOUGH FOR NOTABILITY OF THIS SUBJECT? Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those things apply to him. --bonadea contributions talk 17:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ace of Space 2. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 17:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ace of Space 2, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Google Knowledge Panel is not a reliable source. Nor is Google. bonadea contributions talk 18:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiz name is Ramiz King for security reason he wishes to not state his previous name as a follower of his I’m aware of that and he is recognised all over press as Ramiz King Positiveilluminati (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not do of that sort to anyone. Please highlight when I did that? I only pointed out a mistake done by the editor which can be seen as all sorts of wrong. If you can point my mistake out to me I’m happy going to apologise and redeem myself. Positiveilluminati (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation at AN is not about a mistake, you're accusing another editor of bigotry, apparent;y to have your way in a content dispute. Stop that. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the complaint at AN before things get worse for you. Stop making personalizing disagreements with other editors. If this kind of behavior recurs, you may face sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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 the submission 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 the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve checked and he is notable under the guideline of someone creating or establishing a movement or category, why was this declined?

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

#Being a contestant in reality TV show do not confer notability.

1. Participating in
   WP:NACTOR. In my previous comment, I suggested to redirect it to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 11). Submission claims that she made her film debut with Boss (2013 Hindi film)
   , but her role is either not covered by sources or she has never appeared in such a film.

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:Lucinda Nicholas 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:Lucinda Nicholas, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean redirect to bigg boss? Positiveilluminati (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Despite being warned, you have persisted in going from place to place, making personal attacks against another editor. This is harassment and it must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 11 July 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I had to forum shop or whatever it is because my discussion was not being discussed and immediately closed in all the sections where I raised the issue. How is this a fair community I feel bullied and forced to keep my mouth shut about an incident which needs light shed on. An editor did indeed misjudge a reliable source with no evidence and I have to pay the price of it? I’m contacting higher authority but this is wrong. I only forum shopped because my discussion are being shut down and it’s evident on the tea house through an comment by a truthful editor which states that why was both discussions closed without further investigation on the matter. I didn’t make a personal attack on the editor I voiced my theory of how they only actively attack a certain demographic more than any other thing on here? I sense unfairness through a phone screen or computer screen too, that’s just me and I said it once but once I was shut down I apolgised and never brought it up again until now. ON BONADEA TALK PAGE HER RESPONSE TO REMOVING MY COMMENTS WAS THAT I AM A SOCK PUPPET WHEN I HAVE HER SCREENSHOT SHE ACKNOWLEDGED MY HONESTY THAT I HAD WRITTEN IN MY TALK PAGE AGES AGO THAT I HAVE TWO ACCOUNTS NOW DUE TO JUDGEMENTS AND SHE NEVER BLOCKEF ME BUT THEY USED THE EXCUSE THAT I WAS A BLOCKED SOCKPUPPET HENCR HER REMOVAL OF THE COMMENT WHICH IS ENTIRELY NOT TRUE BECUASE I WAS NEVER BLOCKED BEFORE UNTIL NOW, I AM FUMING THAT HOW CAN SOMEONE GET AWAY BEING SO UNFAIR ON HERE AND NO ONE DEFENDING OR BEING. A FAIR JUDGE??? I am losing faith in humanity day by day. I WAS NEVER BLOCKED FOR BEING A SOCK PUPPET AND I HAVE HER SCREENSHOT IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT PLEASE ASK BUT YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THIS OR ELSE IM GOING TO MAKE THIS A BIGGER DEAL. Positiveilluminati (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are expected to address your conduct. This isn't about Bonadea, it's about your behavior, which you've completely failed to address. If you abuse unblock requests to attack other editors, your access to this talkpage will be removed. All-caps complaints tend not to be read. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2021 (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.

Wait a second – I am quite certain I did not call you a sockpuppet or revert any of your edits for that reason. If I did so it was in error (and inadvertent), and I'd appreciate it if you could provide a

I have no personal issues with you in fact I respect your abilities and you. Just calling Hindustan times a press release when it’s one of the most elite respectful agencies I found offensive, artists are literally giving their time accepting interviews and journalists are writing Independently and you made it seem as it were a paid thing. That’s bad on the artist and journalist. I’ve lost faith in the community to give real justice unfortunately 🥺 Positiveilluminati (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: I agree, I've not seen that either. I have seen Positiveilluminati making accusations that appear to be aimed at winning a content dispute, which is why they're blocked. Acroterion (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All capital letters seen as shouting, which never solves a dispute. It's a 72 hour block. Find something else to do. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a 72 hour block, but if the harassing behavior resumes after the block ends, the next block will be much longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which is what I referred to in my ES? The user is a sockpuppet. They were blocked as a sockpuppet before my second revert. Please do not respond further here; I will not interfere with the talk page again. --bonadea contributions talk 07:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC) / please mediate this? Does this contradict what Bondea is saying? I’m confused please elaborate. Positiveilluminati (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mediation is required. Your harassing behavior is not acceptable. You have two choices. Either stop it or get blocked indefinitely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I wish not to Harrass anyone and won’t do it. If my concern is perceived that way I’m sorry also for that too. But who is going to shed light on what’s been done? All the want is a just explaination. Can a editor tag a Reliable source as a press release with no evidence and through check of the organisations policies? Hindustan times adds a disclaimer to press releases, is there one visible? Can this be explained in the most non aggressive or defensive way? I spread love. I expect the same. Positiveilluminati (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindustan Times source is an interview of King. As such, it is not an independent source and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. Although it is not overtly a press release, I consider it almost certain that it was generated by a press release or other promotional activity by King and his team. Your failure to see the weaknesses of the four sources in that article calls your neutrality and ability to evaluate the reliability and independence of sources into question. You turned a reasonable disagreement about the nature of a source into a club that you carried around all over Wikipedia to unfairly attack another editor. So, as I said previously, drop it or get blocked indefinitely. The choice is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which is what I referred to in my ES? The user is a sockpuppet. They were blocked as a sockpuppet before my second revert. I did write that on my user talk page [1], but it was not about you! It is a different conversation from the one you and I had. The user I was talking about had been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, and I had reverted an inappropriate post they had made to an article talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay understood, sorry for misinterpreting the situation. Positiveilluminati (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I still blocked btw? Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pooja Misrra, you may be blocked from editing. You have added and repeatedly restored grammar errors, promotional text, and unsourced content. Please stop. bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Locomotive207 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. 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:BaChashem 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:BaChashem, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

🌀 01:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pooja Misrra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Boss.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails

WP:GNG

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:Pratik Sehajpal 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:Pratik Sehajpal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or

does this not cover him ? He fits this category Positiveilluminati (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or

does this not cover him ? He fits this category Positiveilluminati (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

An article you recently created,

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bonadea was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Blatant advertising, borderline speedy deletion (spam) candidate.

Part of a set of drafts about Ramiz King; drafts about him and his various projects have been repeatedly created by a number of UPE editors.

Looking at the sources here, only one of them mentions Life According to Ramiz, as a brief aside. The others don't say anything about it, so the fact that notability is nonexistent is obvious. The draft creator has done a very sloppy job, copypasting some references from

WP:CITEKILL

, while the rest of the draft is unsourced. The creator also missed the fact that not only do the sources not support the content in the draft, some of the sources are copies of the same press release.

bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Positiveilluminati, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Positiveilluminati|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel more so you’re a paid editor to spread falsehood, I am a man of God and will only write the truth, the mere facts that you removed a credible source which backs everything I’ve written brings your entire journey on Wikipedia in question. How can you as experienced editor go against Wikipedia policies and then just block those who call you out on it? ABC CLEARLY explains the plot line aw they did an video interview which is online, you can’t hide the truths and mix falsehood with it or share your point of view - you’re obliged to only share where a source reports? And answer to your question is no I’m not a paid editor I am a qualified journalist from

an agency which you so know of by now I hope, and I do this for free and only write the truth , go ahead block me I’ve already brougt this to the attention of the one who approved the article. Good luck. Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's

Thanks. Sorry, Positiveilluminati (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary certainly implies you have a connection with Digangana Suryavanshi. If so, you should NOT be editing the article, but rather using the talk page to request edits.

With that said, if Ms. Suryavanshi doesn't want some images of her available at Wikimedia Commons, she can submit a request for a courtesy deletion following the instructions here. She should be aware that Wikimedia is under no obligation to take the images down, as the creator (the same person who created the new headshot) has released them under a Creative Commons license, making them available to anyone to freely use. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the creator who has used the creative license? I was just told that she was underage in the images. Positiveilluminati (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since your command of written English is not very strong, and since your main objective is apparently to promote Ramiz King, please don't edit articles directly but instead make edit requests as described above. When other editora have to fix every single mainspace edit you make, it turns into a time sink. By using article talk pages to make edit requests, you allow uninvolved editors to add any relevant information in idiomatic and neutrally phrased English. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing while logged out and start using article talk pages to suggest changes. It is not acceptable to force other editors to clean up every single edit you make.

You must also declare your conflict of interest with regard to Ramiz King.

This is in reference to your recent edit to West Ta East. --bonadea contributions talk 05:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What edit? Positiveilluminati (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pratik Sehajpal, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a
  section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion
  .) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See
  Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
  for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Positiveilluminati. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]