User talk:Goldtrigger

Regarding your edits to Man of Sin:

Your recent edit to Man of Sin (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Goldtrigger

Hello Goldtrigger,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Goldtrigger for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Goldtrigger

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Goldtrigger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

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 deleted 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. Kosack (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

im new to this and i didnt read any of the rules for wikipedia, i will make sure next time i will comply after reading the rules for wikipedia, i understand the deletion of the page and im terribly sorry for adding the links to it and im hoping that the block can be unblocked Goldtrigger (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to believe Wikipedia is some sort of social media site. It isn't. If you want to share your thoughts with the world, go and start a blog. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:17, 23 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

this is strict treatment for a first time offender, i would expect this kind of behavior for a serial pest, all i wanted to do was create a page and now i have been blocked, i have read the rules for disruptive edits and i cannot see how i fit under that rule because it is my first time and i have not done it multiple times as the rule suggests, i would expect help from admins and other editors but everyone seems to be quick to fire the gun and denied me access to edit, i wanted to create a wiki page in my name and yet i cannot do that because someone thinks it is self-promoting. instead of blocking me, help me to understand the way things work around here to improve me to become better at something that i have only just attempted for the first time. wiki is really confusing to navigate at the moment and im finding it really hard to find the things i need in order to compile my defense, in order to be a positive and active contributor to wiki. thank you for reading Goldtrigger (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, no I cannot unblock you. You have completely not addressed the reason for the bock. This is an encyclopedia. Those edits are completely not acceptable. This is not a court of law. You do not compile a defense. It's really quite simple. You will need to affirm understanding that you will not repeat such edits as you made. You must also indicate what sort of constructive edits you will make. And as a word of advice, complaining about the unfairness of us protecting our work against the sort of disruptive edits you have made is the surest way to ensure we decline your unblock request. Please see the boilerplate that follows. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2018 (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.

PS I did not see the deleted content. Wikipedia is not a webhost on which to invite people to your spotify page. Some warnings appear to have been lost. I will restore them,--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Note to reviewing admins This should be considered an advertising block, possibly a SPAMU hard block if you look at deleted content and user name.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]