User talk:Diaozhadelaowai

Archives

*Archive 1

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Self-promoting issues on Nathan Rich. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated self promotion

Please stop your self promotion. It is against the Wikipedia Guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trufeseeker (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

My original edit was undone by you more than three times within the last 24 hours, you continue to use Wikipedia as your own self promotional tool, this is clearly against the guidelines of Wikipedia's self promotion tools, your continued revisions of my edits which legitimately correct the self promotional aspects of the page that you created by yourself for your own promotional purposes are a clear abuse of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trufeseeker (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being reverted as they are flagged for vandalism. If you have an issue, take it up in dispute pages, not by butchering a well-sourced article, as you have been told repeatedly. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging my legitimate edits as vandalism

You are flagging my edits as vandalism which is entirely self serving, you as the author of your own page are of course motivated to flag for vandalism legitimate edits to the page as they go against your agenda of self promotion. Links to your own YouTube videos that you are using to "legitimise" your article and links to your own book and iMDB page which was created by yourself do not make a "well-sourced" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trufeseeker (talk • contribs) 03:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nathan Rich for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathan Rich 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/Nathan Rich 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. Rockstonetalk to me! 17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at Nathan Rich. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.  Sasquatch t|c 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]