Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Your submission at Articles for creation: Independent Australia (March 1)

[edit]
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 adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of websites, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Issues previously identified have still to be addressed.
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.
Dan arndt (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello, MickeyViolet! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Independent Australia (March 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere 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, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Remove all external links. Remove references that don't explicitly mention the subject (virtually all of them). Removes references to Wikipedia. Next, remove false claims, such as 'one of Australia's most popular news websites' ( it has an Alexa in Australia of 3,112). Remove puffery such as 'Committed to quality investigative journalism'. To satisfy WP:GNG the article must have 'significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject', which has now been mentioned twice but the editor has stubbornly refused to take any notice. Further submissions that ignore reviewers will result in the article being nominated for deletion.
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.
David.moreno72 03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Independent Australia (March 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere 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, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The claim that 'Independent Australia has conducted detailed investigations, including into the Health Services Union expenses affair' is not verified by the reference. In this instance the reference says that 'Pages of credit card statements have been uploaded to the Independent Australia website', and does not actually mention ANY investigation BY Independent Australia.

The other claim, 'as well as the controversy concerning the (former) Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper', the reference says that yes, it was established by the editor of 'Independent Australia', but, and I quote 'have been co-ordinating the investigation around a central website – ashbygate.com.au', NOT Independent Australia.

Please write FROM the references and please stop making false claims.
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.
David.moreno72 08:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MickeyViolet. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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 ~~~~}}.  --Blablubbs (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request review

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Since I do not have multiple accounts, I believe I have been targeted based on personal bias. There is no evidence that I have "multiple accounts" because I only have one Wikipedia account. I would appreciate a reversal as soon as possible or evidence provided to the contrary. Thank you. MickeyViolet (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC) MickeyViolet (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am convinced by the evidence (your edit history and the SPI). And really, if we just took everyone's word that they weren't a sock, what would be the point of even having a sockpuppetry policy? — Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 3 October 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.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MickeyViolet

Leave a Reply