User talk:Techbulletin

April 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Keith Powers has been reverted. Your edit here to Keith Powers was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.twitter.com/keithpowers/Keith) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Ryan Destiny have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to Ryan Destiny was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.twitter.com/ryandestiny/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually don't mind the above, you're already blocked under the account User:Jaymovez. Until that account is unblocked, you may not edit Wikipedia under any account or anonymously. Blocks apply to a person, not an account. I have accordingly blocked this account as a block evading sockpuppet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no relation to that account. You are clearly speaking on assumption. Please explain the evidence on my relation tot he account you've listed above -Techbulletin (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey 331 Dot,

Valid point. I’m assuming you all have blocked my account since myself and the other user are editing & creating pages based on similar content. While my guesses are limited, you could review check user evidence to see if myself and the other user has the same IP address. I can assure we we are not the same person. What could I do to prove that this account is not a sock puppet or ban evading? Techbulletin (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, here's a lot of the similarities between your three accounts (other than, of course, all attempting to put promotional content at Movez. All of them deliberately ducked around autoconfirmed by making exactly ten minor edits. All of them then proceeded to create or edit an inappropriately promotional article on the same company. In the case of you and, the chances that two unrelated brand-new editors, who had both just ducked autoconfirmed in the same way, took interest in the same previously nonexistent company article is, well, rather farfetched. And checkuser can't "prove innocence"; I could be editing "from" an IP in Brazil or Tibet with a couple mouse clicks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So it sounds like you’re basing your conclusion on assumptions still. (i.e “I could be”, “rather far fetched”.) Lastly, I didn’t create the article. I was editing it and the content was actually not promotional. You took the article down and failed to show the specific content you deemed promotional. Most admins would specify this information, but I understand it will be hard for you to do so because the article was clear cut and of preset notability. Did you even read the article? If you had checked the logs, you’d see other editors took part in editions as well. The vast majority of the sources the initial article creator listed were referenced in secondary sources that already have credibility. (The sources had their own wiki pages FYI) —Techbulletin (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If you hadn't been involved with the article the first time around, how might you know what those logs showed? (And your continued insistence on "notability", despite the fact that the article was deleted for promotion, not lack of notability, exactly resembles your other account). You already got caught with your first sockpuppet; you just got caught again. Sorry, not buying it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dude what are you talking about. You are literally just talking out of your ass. What article the first time around? I was talking about the most recent article you deleted. . And I’m challenging you on your “”promotional”” claim because you have failed to point out how the article was promotional when the complete tone of everything written was informative based on everything found in secondary sources. Get out of your pride. —Techbulletin (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the funniest thing about this is you have failed to mention how the article was “ambiguously promotional” still. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence to your claim Mr. Deletionist. You literally read content dispute and without reading the content of the article, took it down. lol Techbulletin (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)