User talk:Cleojason

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I created my first Wikipedia page but I cannot edit the title. The current title is Roopashree Jeevaji (actress). I want the (actress) tag taken away but I cannot do that as I have not been autoconfirmed. I want it moved to this new title: Roopashree Jeevaji. Thanks.--Cleojason (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cleojason: I'll do that for you now! Once you have about 10 edits and have been active for 4 days (I think), you will become autoconfirmed. Until then, use the {{help me}} tag to ask for this. Seagull123 Φ 22:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done ! Check Roopashree Jeevaji (actress) and Roopashree Jeevaji. I'm happy to help at any time if you so need it. Seagull123 Φ 22:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I do not understand the meaning of this message on an article I am about editing: "This section is a candidate to be copied to Wikiquote using the Transwiki process." Please what does it mean and how can it be corrected?

Cleojason (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cleojason! It means the "Personal Quotes" section would be better suited for Wikiquote than Wikipedia, and the quotes should be moved to wikiquote:Roopashree Jeevaji. Once it's been moved, a {{Wikiquote|Roopashree Jeevaji}} template will be put on the page so readers can click through to Wikiquote if they wish to read Jeevaji's quotes. benzband (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Logan Bohbot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Logan Bohbot 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/Logan Bohbot until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rohit Gaur

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rohit Gaur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Cleojason, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Rohit Gaur has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK REQUEST

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).

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

Request reason:

My account has been tagged to be a sock puppet of Boskit190. This is 100% wrong. I do not know the user neither have I had any dealings with him. Please those involved should restore my account as I enjoy making contributions to improve Wikipedia the same way I get information here.Cleojason (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppet and it's pretty clear you have engaged in paid editing. Yamla (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

Request reason:

This is not making sense to me. How is it confirmed please? I do not know the user you have mentionedCleojason (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Which part of WP:COI and "we don't need paid editors" doesn't make sense to you? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

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

Request reason:

I am beginning to suspect that there are cliques here. If a member of that clique has said something, the others do not give you a chance. I have asked how my account is confirmed to be a sock puppet of Boskit190 but nobody is giving me a reasonable answer. All I get is that I am a paid editor. If I am a paid editor, will I be very much interested in this account that is pretty new with less than 30 edits? I have decided to stop creating pages for now because a few of my pages got deleted. I have been taking courses on how to create pages in my interest that is also in line with Wikipedia's page creation policies. Also, I was directed to G5(sorry I don't know how to link to that page yet) and I read that pages created before a block should not be deleted. This is making me wonder why all the pages I created were deleted. I should definitely ask questions, and if this is not personal, then I need satisfying answers. Cleojason (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined, as this is a CheckUser-confirmed block. Please submit your request to UTRS for consideration. Talk page access has been revoked. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2016 (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.

You are not permitted to set up other accounts to get around your block. While you are welcome to take courses in creating pages that interest you, you are not permitted to create those pages, even with a new account, unless this account is unblock. See WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. --Yamla (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]