Billyatthewheels
Welcome!
edit
|
Trivia
editHi. Please do not add trivial informations such as this or this. Infos such as this is highest score at X ground or third highest score at Y ground are trivial and are unnecessary. Also, the source you used (stats.espncricinfo.com) should not be used except in a stats table. This is because they are not static sources. I also suggest you to see the manual of style used in Wikipedia. Thanks, ☎️ Churot DancePop 04:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
edit
Hello, I'm Flix11. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please read WP:LIVESCORES. Flix11 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The player scored a goal and I updated his Wikipedia profile. Is it not allowed? Billyatthewheels (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. Updating the stats is allowed, but only after the match is over. The consensus is to not update any stats mid-match, of any sports. Clog Wolf Howl 04:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: 17th Lux Style Awards has been accepted
edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Doric Loon (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)July 2021
edit
Hello, I'm Justiyaya. I noticed that in this edit to Mohammad Asif (cricketer), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justiyaya 20:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for this but I checked and I haven't removed anything. I just added a few references. Maybe something got removed accidentally Billyatthewheels (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Help
editPlz help to adding information to create the page Tariq Jamil Foundation. Link http://www.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Maulana_Tariq_Jamil_Foundation Arqamkhawaja (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Arqamkhawaja. I checked the page but unfortunately, I couldn't find a lot of reliable sources.
Nomination of Ri Djavi Alexandra for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ri Djavi Alexandra 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.
The article Natasha Bharadwaj has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This actress has not had sufficient roles as an entertainer as laid out in WP:ENTERTAINER - Has had significant roles in **multiple** notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;
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. Whiteguru (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Cupid Chan
edit
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 Cupid Chan, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
- It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Cupid Chan (October 11)
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cupid Chan 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:Cupid Chan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.
Speedy deletion nomination of Suraj Beera
edit 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 Suraj Beera, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
- It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MickyShy (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
edit Hello Billyatthewheels. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Suraj Beera, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Billyatthewheels. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Billyatthewheels|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your response. Some editors might take money for editing or writing a new page but I personally think it's unethical and in fact, I have mentioned it on my talk page too that I am against Paid advertisements. Thanks Billyatthewheels (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Your question on Talk:Suraj Beera
editI was going to provide an answer on the now deleted talk page Talk:Suraj Beera:
- Can you please guide me on how to identify the best sources? There are tons of sites on internet so I'll be thankful if you can guide me with your experience about finding the perfect source. I appreciate your feedback Billyatthewheels (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- It depends on context. For medical articles, we have different requirements than for sports biographies. A source may be good for one topic but not another. For a subject like this, good sources are typically large, mainstream newspapers or magazines with a reputation for fact checking. They ought to have a clear editorial policy and clearly and unambiguously separate editorial and advertising content. If an article is paid for, it should say who paid for it. For an example, let;s have a look at the first publication that is used as a source, [Outlook] Is outlook a well-known magazine? Wikipedia has an article on it: Outlook_(Indian_magazine) but that doesn't tell us much. Does Wikipedia itself refer to outlook as a source? Yes, it does, very frequently in fact. Much refers to their news section. What is interesting is that the section where this article was published, https://www.outlookindia.com/website/section/outlook-spotlight is not referenced in any of our other articles. Unlike other pieces in Outlook, these articles are not bylined; there is no mention of an author. That's not a good sign, a reliable source has an author. Then we can look at the claims that the article makes: can we verify them? The first claim is that he is "Empowering Travel & Wellness Across The Planet". That's a headline, and those are often written by someone else, so we'll skip that. So the first claim we'll look at is "Suraj Beera is a global renowned Digital author and is regarded for his remarkable work on Travel pictures, his food regimen health and e-commerce startup "Your Diet Manager". I think the anonymous author means "globally renowned", but no mention of any renown follows. I'm not sure what a "Digital author" is, but I assume they mean blogger. That doesn't really check out, he is listed with a facebook account, andrew.suraj.77, an instagram account, aliveisawesome and a twitter account, SurajBeera. So perhaps with "Digital author" they mean "someone with a social media account" instead. Examples of his "remarkable work on Travel pictures" are not provided. A link to the e-commerce startup "Your Diet Manager" is also not provided. Does that website actually exist? If it does, Outlook doesn't link to it. The next claim is that "He has directed many commercials", but again, not one example or a link to it. And so it continues. Almost nothing in that article turns out to be verifiable. So, even though the source Outlook Magazine may sometimes be reliable in a specific context, here it is not a reliable source. Vexations (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Cupid Chan (October 12)
edit 
|
Hello, Billyatthewheels!
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! PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
|
Nomination of Tarannum Yogesh Dobriyal for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tarannum Yogesh Dobriyal, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarannum Yogesh Dobriyal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Kate Hoang for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kate Hoang, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Hoang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Sawandi Wilson for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sawandi Wilson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawandi Wilson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Billyatthewheels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi I got the notification that I'm blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts. I mainly use my laptop (and mobile phone rarely) for making any edits on Wikipedia and I'm absolutely sure that no one else uses my laptop apart from me and I don't have any other Wikipedia account as well. I have one sister and 2 brothers and I asked from them as well incase they used my laptop and created any account on Wikipedia (but there answer was no). BTW sometimes I do use VPN but I think I'm not blocked just because of IP address. I don't have any reason to create a new Wikipedia account because I hardly get time to use my account "Billyatthewheels" so it's almost impossible for me to manage time for creating and using other accounts because I got a job and personal life as well. I don't know how you review the unblock requests or what things u see before making decisions but if you need, I can provide my identity proof, Internet service provider and other things as well if needed. I created my account in April and I invested a lot of time in understanding Wikipedia rules and other aspects in the last 6-7 months so I won't do anything stupid to block myself because while understanding Wikipedia rules, I came across multiple cases of blocked Wikipedia accounts. I'll be really thankful if you can review my case and unblock my account. You can also keep me under review to see if I do anything wrong. I'll be thankful. Billyatthewheels (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed via technical evidence. Combined with the behavioural evidence, there's no doubt here. Yamla (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
I can understand and appreciate your feedback but I think we shouldn't stress everything mechanical/technical and we should see from human angle as well. I already tried to explain how I use my account and how I tried to inquire and asked from my family members as well incase anyone else created a Wikipedia account. Now I don't know what technical evidence you got but I have offered to provide anything (ID proof, Internet provider or anything) which can be helpful in clearing my account. Yes one thing I would also like to mention is that before 30th October 2021, I was using my personal Internet device but after 30th we had to relocate and I relied on shared public Internet so maybe that can be the reason too? I don't know but if I'm using account since April 2021 without any issues or warnings from you then I think this might be some technical issues (out of my hands) and I'm ready to fix the issues if I get a chance. I think everyone deserves to get a chance to clear himself. I shall be really thankful. Billyatthewheels (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Billyatthewheels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Couple of weeks ago, I got the notification that I'm blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts. I mainly use my laptop (and mobile phone rarely) for making any edits on Wikipedia and I'm absolutely sure that no one else uses my laptop apart from me and I don't have any other Wikipedia account as well. I have one sister and 2 brothers and I asked from them as well incase they used my laptop and created any account on Wikipedia (but there answer was no). BTW sometimes I do use VPN but I think I'm not blocked just because of IP address. I don't have any reason to create a new Wikipedia account because I hardly get time to use my account "Billyatthewheels" so it's almost impossible for me to manage time for creating and using other accounts because I got a job and personal life as well. I don't know how you review the unblock requests or what things u see before making decisions but if you need, I can provide my identity proof, Internet service provider and other things as well if needed. I created my account in April and I invested a lot of time in understanding Wikipedia rules and other aspects in the last 6-7 months so I won't do anything stupid to block myself because while understanding Wikipedia rules, I came across multiple cases of blocked Wikipedia accounts. I was told that block is done due to technical evidence as well as behavioural evidence. I can understand and appreciate this feedback but I think we shouldn't stress everything mechanical/technical and we should see from human angle as well. I already tried to explain how I use my account and how I tried to inquire and asked from my family members as well incase anyone else created a Wikipedia account. Now I don't know what technical evidence you got but I have offered to provide anything (ID proof, Internet provider or anything) which can be helpful in clearing my account. Yes one thing I would also like to mention is that before 30th October 2021, I was using my personal Internet (Stormfiber) but after 30th we had to relocate and I relied on shared public Internet and Internet cafes so maybe that can be the reason too? I don't know but if I'm using account since April 2021 without any issues or warnings from you then I think this might be some technical issues (out of my hands) and I'm ready to fix the issues if I get a chance. I think everyone deserves to get a chance to clear himself. I'll be really thankful if you can review my case and unblock my account. You can also keep me under review to see if I do anything wrong Billyatthewheels (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your offer to provide your ID misses the point. Sockpuppetry is not just misrepresenting yourself as someone else. It is creating additional accounts to use and pretend you are unrelated individuals. All the ID you could possibly present would not, could not cast any doubt on our conclusion that that's what you did.
People in your position make offers like that all the time but never seem to consider them from our perspective: they are completely useless, as even if we could authenticate the ID independently there is no way to verify that the person with the ID is actually the one using the Internet connection. So we err on the side of caution. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
Natasha Bharadwaj moved to draftspace
editAn article you recently created, Natasha Bharadwaj, is not suitable 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. Onel5969 TT me 12:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Natasha Bharadwaj
edit Hello, Billyatthewheels. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Natasha Bharadwaj, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Cupid Chan
edit Hello, Billyatthewheels. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cupid Chan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Cupid Chan
edit
Hello, Billyatthewheels. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cupid Chan".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)