User talk:DZ-NYU-2020

Hello, DZ-NYU-2020, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Praxidicae (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

DZ-NYU-2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't understand why I was just blocked. I am a new user but I was trying to follow the rules. I added citations for the sources of my information, I wrote grammatically correct text entries, and added correct hyperlinks to relevant internal Wikipedia entries. It said I was spreading spam and advertising. I never added spam or advertising anywhere, so I really do not understand why I was blocked. Can you please help me?

Accept reason:

I will unblock you per your agreement not to post links to asiamediawatch. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edit history consists almost exclusively of links to asiamediawatch.com. You might have a little text with it, but the intent of the edits is clear. If you have some sort of connection to this website, you are required by WP:COI and WP:PAID to disclose it. Adding a lot of links to the same website to different pages in quick succession will usually appear to others as being a spammer. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I wont link to asiamediawatch.com as a source. That was never the intent. It was just that Wikipedia info on various newspapers in Asia is very out of date or flat out incorrect. I did a class project and did a lot of research on the newspapers in Asia. On Wikipedia, a full 50% have no articles at all, just newspapers added to a list. Of the papers on Wikipedia, a full 50% were stub-articles that had almost no information at all, other than 1 sentence. I found may examples of defunct newspapers that had clearly closed, but people had taken over the site and the newspaper link to the homepage linked to other companies. I found several examples in Japan where they linked to pills to make you taller or enhance male performance. I found MANY examples throughout Wikipedia, where the "newspapers" were newspapers in name only and were really advertisements for web-design or graphic design companies. I even found one link on Wikipedia that linked to a sex site. Great job at administering those sites. I was making an honest and genuine attempt, out of personal interest and just fun, to go in a really clean those pages up, to add information where it was missing, to flag sites where the papers were defunct, madquerading as newspapers, but really advertisement. The irony, I get blocked by Wikipedia for my efforts. Hey, if you dont want me to add citations to various websites, thats fine. I don't particularly care about citing to any particular or specific source or website. But the "lists of XYZ newspapers" really need cleaned up. The individual pages for individual newspapers really needs cleaned up. No one else seems to be doing it and I was happy to do it. But I can find better and more uses of my time if this is Wikipedia policies towards actually creating a source of correct and useful information. DZ-NYU-2020 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reformatted your statment; only one open request is needed, subsequent comments can be standard, unformatted comments. Ohnoitsjamie, I would appreciate any comment you have. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK spamming with a WP:COI. It wouldn't hurt to unblock as the user has agreed not to add any more links to asiamediawatch (and reblocks and blacklisting are easy enough), though usually when we unblock in these cases the editor disappears. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is not going to happen and this user is not going anywhere. Asia's "newspapers", the "Lists of newspapers in XYZ country", the "individual" newspapers throughout Asia are an absolute mess. Whoever was in charge of those pages was asleep or not doing their job. And it needs cleaned up. And no one seems to care but me. So, thank you for unblocking me. Because I actually have work to do now, and I want to do this. Daisy.

Glad to hear you're sticking around. Apologies if I misjudged your intentions, but a very high percentage of editors that canvas links to a single site do have a conflict of interest. No one is "in charge" of any page or set of pages in Wikipedia. Given that this is the English language Wikipedia, I'm not surprised that articles about Asian newspapers are in need of work. I suspect you may have to rely on some non-English sources, which is OK if English sources are not available (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the good advice! I will go a bit slower and start hunting down original citations, most of which are, like you said, on non-English speaking websites. Thankfully, Google Translate is a big help with that. Its not always the best translation, but it does really help to find the critical information. Thanks again! Daisy

Hi there, I noticed you've been adding political leanings to a ton of articles but haven't provided a source. For statements and facts such as this, they really need to be sourced. Praxidicae (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up and letting me know. I will make sure I cite the source for these. Daisy

Actually, I do have a question if you don't mind answering. Or maybe you can send me a link on how to do this. I see that other people have added citations to the information they enter into the "text boxes". I don't see it all the time, but I have seen it done. I was hoping to learn how to do that. I know that often, the information is also in the main body of the article, and either has a citation or it doesn't. I know how to enter the citation in the main body of the article, but I have no idea how to add a citation when entering the basic info into those text boxes you see up in the top right hand corner of the article. Anyway, sorry to bother you with all this, I am sure the Admins are really ready to kick me off and not have to deal with problems of a new user. But I am trying, and I do want to do this correctly. So, really thank you for any and all the help and advice you can give to me. Daisy

It's not really any different. For example, in this edit, next to the word "Liberal" you'd just add <ref>{{cite... }}</ref>. Please don't hesitate to ask for assistance. While we have lots of help guides published, it's not always easy to find the right one. The Wikipedia:Teahouse is also a great place to ask questions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO much! I was really wondering how to do that but had no idea! I will definitely start doing that going forward. Please keep sending me comments and advice, so that I can do this much better in the future!  :) Daisy

I have decided what my priorities should be going forward. The really BIG newspapers in Asia (SCMP, Economic Times, Straits Times, New Straits Times, etc...) they are actually in REALLY good shape. They really are good...textbook examples of good Wikipedia articles. In fact, those were my examples for what the other papers around Asia should look like, in terms of formatting, content, and aspiring to be. I think I will focus on lesser known papers and bring them up to the quality of what should be expected on Wikipedia. If they are on Wikipedia, they should meet certain minimum expectations. And in all cases, papers around Asia...should be held to the same (at least minimum) standards as papers in the rest of the world, in terms of article content, article format, etc. Asia should be held to the same standard as the rest of the world. I really do look forward to working with you and getting advice from you as I work on this project. Daisy.

That sounds like a solid plan. You may be able to coordinate with others for on article improvement if you wish to. I didn't immediately find a Wikiproject on Asian newspapers specifically, but there are a few other somewhat related projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asia and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Newspapers. Wikiprojects can be useful for having a central place to track articles needing attention, etc. One other thing; you can sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. In your case, by default, it would sign it as a link to your userpage (User:DZ-NYU-2020) followed by a timestamp. If you want "Daisy" as part of your signature, you can do that by going to the "preferences" link in the upper right and editing your signature there, something like [[User:DZ-NYU-2020|DZ-NYU-2020 (Daisy)]] [[User talk:DZ-NYU-2020|^Talk]], for example. Doing so provides a timestamp which is helpful, and also provides a handy link so other users can post on your talk page if necessary. Thanks, and happy editing OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To: Ohnoitsjamie I tried to set up a user page for my Wikipedia ID (DZ-NYU-2020) but I dont think it worked, I didnt do it right, or maybe its still under review. But I clicked on the link that Wikipedia sent to me to create my User Page but when I go to DZ-NYU-2020, it doesn't seem that the page was created. Maybe I am not doing it right. I also did as you suggested, and went into preferences and entered the text you provided. Hopefully this will work. Thank you!

Test....

I am so NOT a tech person...I have no idea whether my signature is displaying correctly or not...

In my preferences in the DZ-NYU-2020 page, I see the following:

Signature Your existing signature: DZ-NYU-2020 (Daisy) Talk

DZ-NYU-2020 (Daisy) Talk 23:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything seems to be working now. I set up my User page, signature line, and know how to use the 4 tildas to sign on my talk page. DZ-NYU-2020 (Daisy) Talk 00:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Druk Trowa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of meeting WP:Notability guidelines. Just because it exists does not mean it is notable enough for a wikipedia article.

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. noq (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove content from inside the prod template. You can remove the whole template, and the proposed deletion process will be stopped. However, it still does not meet the criteria at WP:NMEDIA and unless you can show how it does, other paths to deletion can be followed. If you agree that the magazine does not meet the criteria, you can request it to be deleted by adding {{db-g7}} at the top of the article. noq (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Response: Proposed deletion of Druk Trowa

I would like a full and objective explanation on what is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia. I understand that an article can be rejected for many reasons, of which we can all agree. Advertisement. Falsehoods. Bad/poor editing. No, or poor citations. But to reject an article simply because YOU do not believe that it has any relevance to the broader English speaking world? You take it upon yourself to make this determination?

Wikipedia is about expanding human knowledge for all of us. Yes, there needs to be gatekeepers to maintain some level of order. But to completely delete an article simply because YOU do do not see the relevance is the height of arrogance. Yes, Druk Trowa is a small magazine in a small country, in a corner of the world, that most people in the English speaking world are unaware of. But does that make this information totally irrelevant to human knowledge? It may not be useful knowledge to you, may not even be interesting to you. But why do you have the final say in whether this is useful or interesting to anyone else? Because its small? Because Bhutan is small? Bhutan is on the other side of the world and few on the western world have heard of it? That's a western-centric arrogance that perpetuates the idea that only things valuable or interesting to the western world, should be included in the English language version of Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Druk Trowa is a small news magazine that focuses on movies and entertainment in Bhutan. Only a small niche of the worlds readers would ever find that interesting. But lets apply that to a western example, a United States example.

The Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that we can all admit is one of the US's most important and noteworthy newspapers...only has a readership of 448,930. Even so, lets assume that the entire city of Chicago (population: 2,695,598) is aware of the Chicago Tribune. The Earth has 7.7 Billion persons. That would mean that the Chicago Tribune has only been ready by, is only known by approximately 0.00035007766 % of the population of the planet. But that that definition and criteria, I should mark the Chicago Tribune for deletion, simply because it is an insignificant newspaper, known by the tiniest fraction of a % of the worlds population. Should I do this? Would I be correct in doing this?

Is that what Wikipedia stands for? Simply erasing and deleting information, unless it is determined "valuable" by a certain level of the planets population? Is that what Wikipedia stands for? Is information to be included on the English language version of Wikipedia only if people in the "west" determine that is is "important enough" to be included? Is English wikipedia only for people in the west?

And don't even get me started on the noteworthiness of the "Kardashians" and the value to human knowledge that particular Wikipedia article brings to humanity....

Asia is as important to the world as the west. Asian newspapers and Asian media are as important to world knowledge as their better known western counterparts in the "west". Small countries deserve to have their knowledge shared the same as large countries.

Its arrogance to say that just because a magazine or a newspaper or a news source is located in a small country in Asia, it is less worthy of being cataloged for human knowledge as some medium size newspaper in the United States. That totally goes against the spirit of what Wikipedia is even about....

Wikipedia is not a listing of everything in the world. There are WP:notability guidelines to decide what is appropriate for inclusion and what is not. These havs been reached via a process of consensus over time. This magazine does not appear to meet those guidelines. Specifically WP:NMEDIA is the relevant specific guideline. How does this magazine meet those guidelines? Unless it does, it does not belong here. noq (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I received your recent message re: Druk Trowa and the Wikipedia standards regarding media companies. I will fully review the standards and make sure that any new articles I create will be in full compliance with these standards. I will also proceed under the assumption that media (newspapers) in Asia have equal validity to their western counterparts and articles on them will be allowed, so long as they meet the same standards that are applied to western newspapers. Therefore, if a newspaper meets the Wikipedia standards in the relevant Asian country, then it should be allowed on the English version of Wikipedia. If it does not meet the standards in the relevant Asian country, then it should be excluded from the English language version of Wikipedia. I agree, that standards need to exist. Wikipedia is not Google. And the standards exist to to protect the integrity and relevance of the Wikipedia project. But standards should also be applied objectively and in a neutral manner with no bias in terms of geographic region. Cultural and geographic bias has no place in Wikipedia. But I will review the standards and make sure that if I do write an article on a newspaper in Asia, that it fully meets the Wikipedia requirements, regardless of whether that newspaper is relatively unknown in the wider English speaking world.

The articles need to meet the standards applied on this wikipedia - whether they meet the standards applied on another wikipedia version is not relevant. Where the media is published is not relevant - the same standard applies. And still you have not shown that it meets the criteria. I will give you another day to show that and if you cannot, I will raise a formal WP:AFD proposal. Also, it is not necessary to duplicate your responses on my talk page, I will see when you respond here. noq (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not discussing the different standards that may or may not exist and be applied to the different language versions of Wikipedia. I am only talking about the English language version of Wikipedia. My point was that a given subject, if it meets the Wikipedia standards (English version) it should be included, regardless of whether that subject matter exists in Bhutan, India, the US, France, or wherever. If it meets the standards, then it should be included. In this case, we are dealing with newspapers in Asia. Admittedly, not all newspapers or magazines are noteworthy, regardless of what country they are published in. But (only for example), the most most read newspaper in Malaysia, or the oldest newspaper in China, or the official newspaper of a given political party in Pakistan, or a newspaper that broke a very important story in Indonesia, should be included. Its not about what language they are published in, or what country they are published in, its about do they meet the standards of importance and noteworthiness, even if those newspapers are published in a foreign country. Clearly, this is so, because there are many, many, many articles on important publications throughout Asia. Does every newspaper or magazine meet that standard? Most certainly not. Not every small town newspaper or village daily merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia, not Google. And I understand that. But I created the stub article for Druk Troya, because it already exists on the List_of_newspapers_in_Bhutan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Bhutan. I didn't create that list, I was just going for consistency and standardization across all of these various lists of news papers across all of Asia. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DZ-NYU-2020. I have already indicated that I am willing for Druk Troya to be deleted, if you or others do not believe that Druk Troya should be included.DZ-NYU-2020 (Daisy) Talk 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient coverage to show it exists so that would probably be enough to add it to the list. I don't however believe that there is sufficient WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources for a standalone article. There are lots of articles that currently exist that do not meet the criteria especially ones that have been created a while - criteria evolve over time and things that at one time might have been accepted are not accepted now and vice versa. Most newer articles now would be reviewed and possibly deleted relatively quickly. There is no need to create stub articles for consistency if there is little prospect of the article ever being more than a stub. For your first few articles, it might be worth using the articles for creation process which will initially create the article as a draft and then submit it for review by an experienced editor who can point out any issues that need to be addressed before it is published in the main article space. Have fun editing wikipedia. noq (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to give me your advice and guidance. Its nice to know that not all those lists need to be filled out. I still prefer consistency and standardization where and when its possible, just to give Wikipedia a more unified look. But I am definitely happy to hear that I don't need to go in and do stub articles for ALL those newspapers! I will go through the list and see if I can identify suitable candidates that meet the Wikipedia standards for inclusion and then use the "articles for creation" process for my first articles. I agree with you, that's the best way to go, since more experienced editors will have a better feel for what should and should not be included, as well as making sure that any article I write, will meed editorial standards. Thank you again!

DZ-NYU-2020 (Daisy) Talk 11:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, BruDirect, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PATH SLOPU 12:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Druk Trowa 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/Druk Trowa 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. noq (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (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 Liance 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. 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:BruDirect 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:BruDirect, 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.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 16:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DZ-NYU-2020! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -Liancetalk/contribs 16:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:BruDirect, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BruDirect, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DZ-NYU-2020. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• 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. Citobun (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=Your reason here DZ-NYU-2020 (Daisy) Talk 09:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

I have been given absolutely NO reason, no concrete reason, no specific reason why I have been blocked. I was blocked. Thats what Admins do. But I was given NO reason why I was blocked. I was accused of SPAMMING...but was given NO specific or even a vague reason for why admins said this. I posted a paper on a list. I gave MANY citations...MANY, MANY 3rd party citations to this paper....and yet...I am blocked. For NO reason. I would like to know why? Someone reversed my edit and could not give me a reason. Someone blocked me, but could not tell me specifically why. I would like to know why. Can anyone actually tell me what I did wrong?

{unblock|reason= Seriously....can anyone actually tell me what I did wrong? Anyone? Any actual reason? I added a paper to a list. I gave about ten (10) 3rd party citations to this paper. And I am blocked???? Seriously??? }

{unblock|reason= I have been given absolutely NO reason, no concrete reason, no specific reason why I have been blocked. I was blocked. Thats what Admins do. But I was given NO reason why I was blocked. I was accused of SPAMMING...but was given NO specific or even a vague reason for why admins said this. I posted a paper on a list. I gave MANY citations...MANY, MANY 3rd party citations to this paper....and yet...I am blocked. For NO reason. I would like to know why? Someone reversed my edit and could not give me a reason. Someone blocked me, but could not tell me specifically why. I would like to know why. Can anyone actually tell me what I did wrong?}

{unblock|reason= Why does wikpedia even ask people to make edits or create articles, if everything they do is just deleted and the person making the change is blocked??? Why even ask people to make additions/edits? I might as well just sit at home and do nothing, certainly do nothing to add to wikpedia. Why even bother, when anything I do just gets deleted and I get blocked? Why bother? But I sure do get those messages once a year asking for money to support the "project"...}

{unblock|reason= Why should anyone actually contribute to Wikipedia? I started about a year ago and got burned (from citing too many times to one source). Admittedly, I had not read the new user manuals, but I later did and never made that mistake again. And then I made many 100's of edits and never had a problem. I made hundreds of additions to Wikipedia articles. I highlighted issues to admins that they should be aware of (ie deletions, spam, etc.) I played by the rules, I did my part, and I contributed. But now? I add one paper to a list of papers, and again...I am blocked? Its taking the "fun" out of this. Makes me wonder whether I should just engage in the "tragedy of the commons"....and freely take from Wikipedia, just read to my hearts content...and yet, give nothing back. Not time. Not effort. Not money. Nothing. Because every time I try to make a difference and improve articles on Wikipedia...its ends up in nothing but frustration. And I have to ask myself. Is this even worth it??? }

{unblock|reason= No one could even give me a consistent answer as to why my edits were being deleted. And every time I gave an explanation, the objection to my edit always changed. It didnt matter. No matter what I said, the edit was simply deleted...based on a new and ever changing criteria. The fact is...no matter how many citations, no matter how many independent 3rd party citations, no matter how well known this paper was...it was simply deleted. }

• Yes, you got an answer. I opened a discussion at Talk:List of newspapers in Hong Kong explaining my concerns and pinged you there, but you chose to ignore it and kept edit warring. The "many" third-party citations you added include two incidental mentions lacking any substance whatsoever, and four non-functional URLs. "Asia Environmental Daily" is plainly not a genuine publication, and you have been warned/blocked in the past for adding such spam links. This could explain today's block. Citobun (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the block log says you were blocked for "Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes". Citobun (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=No...I didnt get an answer. At least not an intelligent answer. Just the ramblings of a low level wiki admin. Not all that bright, even though they somehow have the power of a wiki admin.

Let me educate you....

The sites you say are non-functional...uh...they seem to be working. Clearly you are wrong...

http://ruthrobb.org/Grants-and-Awards.html http://paksolar.org/index.php/awards http://www.phmining.org/Events.html http://cwi-india.org/CWI---Our-Partners.html http://seawps.org/Journalism-Awards.html http://www.kwokfoundation.org/index.php/our-success-en http://green-ag.org/Sponsors.html http://asiamediawatch.com/index.php/greater-china/hong-kong https://www.asiaenv.com/index.php/asia-env-daily/about-the-asia-environmental-daily

Yeah, you did your "research". They got awards, they gave grants, they sponsor events. But...you somehow know what you are talking about. A know nothing. I seriously doubt it.

DZ}

{unblock|reason= A low level wiki admin...knows more than a dozen environmental orgs across Asia... yeah, right. You someone know more than all these orgs and foundations combined??? Yeah...you let the power go to your head. }

I'm not an admin. I didn't block you. Four links you posted had non-functioning URLs – check for yourself. Calling me an "idiot" is probably not going to get you unblocked. Your supposed third-party links look suspiciously spammy and related to one another. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Bye! Citobun (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason= Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. I am right and you are wrong. Please provide me the links that do not work. Please provide me the specific links you keep claiming do not work. The all work. I am able to access all of them. Every single one. The problem is with you or on your end. Then links are fine. But...thats probably hard for you to admit.}

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).

DZ-NYU-2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Now that Cinnabon said "bye".... I am still waiting for some competent authority in Wikipedia to please sort out this mess...DZ

Decline reason:

You had no fewer than ten (10!!!) open unblock requests. That's breathtakingly inappropriate. One. One open unblock request at a time. One. Not two. Not three, and certainly not ten. One. Please read and thoroughly understand WP:GAB before proceeding. If I see you abusing the unblock template again, I will revoke talk page access. You are free to respond to people, but don't abuse the unblock template to do so. You are free to make an unblock request, but you can only ever have one open at a time. And for the record (and to be clear, you have not done this), you are not free to edit or remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Again: one open unblock request at a time. Yamla (talk) 11:40, 19 February 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.

For the record, I took a look at the single link that Citobun provided; The 13th citation here, "Grants and Awards", indeed is an invalid link as Citobun indicated. So's citation 12 there. You linked to http://index.html/ which is obviously invalid. The full citation you provided is {{Cite web|url=http://index.html/|title=CWI - Our Partners|website=index.html|access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://index.html/|title=Grants and Awards|website=index.html|access-date=2020-02-19}}. If you think that works, the problem is on your side. I suggest you should step back and consider that the problem is with your edits, as you've repeatedly been told. This is without prejudice to the quality of your edits when you get the correct URL's; I haven't investigated that case, so do not know if you have indeed been violating WP:PROMO, etc. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]