Jump to content

User talk:Ugochukwu75: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 55: Line 55:
::::: You deleted a TON of material from your talk page on October 28 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ugochukwu75&diff=next&oldid=1052303159 this edit]) that dealt with suspicions of paid editing and sock puppetry, all of which you denied. Now you're partially admitting to paid editing and operating another account - but only in the specific instances that you were definitely caught in. Personally, based on all of that behavior, I don't believe a single word you type at this point. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
::::: You deleted a TON of material from your talk page on October 28 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ugochukwu75&diff=next&oldid=1052303159 this edit]) that dealt with suspicions of paid editing and sock puppetry, all of which you denied. Now you're partially admitting to paid editing and operating another account - but only in the specific instances that you were definitely caught in. Personally, based on all of that behavior, I don't believe a single word you type at this point. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
::::: Also - I would like to know who contacted you about creating an article for Lisa Hoggarth. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
::::: Also - I would like to know who contacted you about creating an article for Lisa Hoggarth. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk:Fred Zepelin|talk]]) 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

:::::I deleted 'a TON of material' from my talk page because I found out that it's not against the Wiki rules after seeing you do that on your talk page. That Binaza account was created for my sister who is into the beautifician stuffs. I have no idea if she was contacted to create a wiki page or not. Can you let me complete my draft, please? [[User:Ugochukwu75|Ugochukwu75]] ([[User talk:Ugochukwu75#top|talk]]) 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:25, 10 November 2021

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

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 Donavon Warren requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donavon Warren. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. SVTCobra 01:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: The page was well referenced but this user who has been attempting to vandalize the page deleted all the availablr references. Can you please review whether he was right for doing so? Thanks!!! Ugochukwu75 (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lie. The "references" were 100% all paid-for promotional websites where one can pay to have a "review" written, or they were blog/forums. I'm about to start going through the rest of your articles to see how those references look. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: he's doing the same on this page. Probably an attempt to get the page deleted by other editors. :man_shrugging: Ugochukwu75 (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two references. In one case, the entire website (bwwmoviesworld.com) does not exist. In the other, the "Worcester Herald" is not a real newspaper - it's a website whose creator gave it a name to try to make it sound like one, and it was active from 2014 to 2018. Appears to be a site where anyone could submit an "article". In other words, it was promotional material, much like every single source you used on Donavon Warren. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Donavon Warren article was notability and the fact that it was previously deleted for not meeting that criteria. In as far as I could tell, nothing had changed in the subject's notability. You had an opportunity to challenge the speedy deletion, but instead you chose to write here. Nevertheless, there are still avenues for you to request undeltion. It's all in the template above. I am not an admin and don't have the powers to do anything at this point. --SVTCobra 23:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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 ~~~~}}.  --Blablubbs (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (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).

Ugochukwu75 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Hello, @Blablubbs: I'm really sorry for having violated WP: PG. Now, I dearly ask for your reconsideration as I vow to always make productive contributions on Wikipedia and never use multiple accounts for WP:ILLEGIT. Please, consider my request. Thanks!!! Ugochukwu75 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Needs to be a much better accounting for your actions. Clearly there is some kind of COI involved here; no ethical person would create a sock to stack votes in AFDs or continue edit wars. We now have no idea to know when you're telling the truth. Kuru (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2021 (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.

I'm sorry, there needs to be a longer response here. Please address WP:PAID and state why you've used sockpuppets abusively. Kuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kuru: I already told you that the WP:PAID incident was just with the page Molding Messengers, which I disclosed immediately after I was notified by an editor. Then I'm just sorry about the abusive use of sockpuppets. I believe that no reason as the use of sockpuppets makes sense here and I promise to never do that again. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2021 (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).

Ugochukwu75 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Hello @Kuru:? I understand that it wasn't ethical on my part in anyway to create a sock and use it for an AfD. I vow never to use socks again in any abusive or unethical way again. I am now aware of all the abusive use of socks and will never enter into edit wars with any editor. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised. Please address WP:PAID and state why you did this. You'll also want to explain why we'd want to unblock you, given that you've demonstrated you don't act ethically. Yamla (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2021 (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 is asking that his block be reviewed:

Ugochukwu75 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Hello, reviewer(s)? I admit that I used multiple accounts in an abusive way. In regards to WP:PAID, that was a one-time incident where a man who paid me to create a Wikipedia page for his publishing company, Molding Messengers. After I became aware of Wikipedia's rules on that, I refunded the man. I never and will never accept payments for editing/creating Wikipedia pages. I only admitted that creating the sock page was an ethical act. I'll never do something like that anymore as I aim to contribute productively to Wikipedia. If you have further questions, please leave that below this, I'll try to respond to it immediately. Thanks, Ugochukwu75 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, reviewer(s)? I admit that I used multiple accounts in an abusive way. In regards to WP:PAID, that was a one-time incident where a man who paid me to create a Wikipedia page for his publishing company, Molding Messengers. After I became aware of Wikipedia's rules on that, I refunded the man. I never and will never accept payments for editing/creating Wikipedia pages. I only admitted that creating the sock page was an ethical act. I'll never do something like that anymore as I aim to contribute productively to Wikipedia. If you have further questions, please leave that below this, I'll try to respond to it immediately. Thanks, [[User:Ugochukwu75|Ugochukwu75]] ([[User talk:Ugochukwu75#top|talk]]) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, reviewer(s)? I admit that I used multiple accounts in an abusive way. In regards to WP:PAID, that was a one-time incident where a man who paid me to create a Wikipedia page for his publishing company, Molding Messengers. After I became aware of Wikipedia's rules on that, I refunded the man. I never and will never accept payments for editing/creating Wikipedia pages. I only admitted that creating the sock page was an ethical act. I'll never do something like that anymore as I aim to contribute productively to Wikipedia. If you have further questions, please leave that below this, I'll try to respond to it immediately. Thanks, [[User:Ugochukwu75|Ugochukwu75]] ([[User talk:Ugochukwu75#top|talk]]) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, reviewer(s)? I admit that I used multiple accounts in an abusive way. In regards to WP:PAID, that was a one-time incident where a man who paid me to create a Wikipedia page for his publishing company, Molding Messengers. After I became aware of Wikipedia's rules on that, I refunded the man. I never and will never accept payments for editing/creating Wikipedia pages. I only admitted that creating the sock page was an ethical act. I'll never do something like that anymore as I aim to contribute productively to Wikipedia. If you have further questions, please leave that below this, I'll try to respond to it immediately. Thanks, [[User:Ugochukwu75|Ugochukwu75]] ([[User talk:Ugochukwu75#top|talk]]) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hello @Blablubbs:? Thanks for your reply. It was after I watched the Wheels movie and read about it on Wiki that I decided to create a page for Donavon Warren and I contacted the first reviewer, NorthAmerica1000 (I'm currently typing from a mobile device so I can't tag them, but I'm sure that you can find it on the page's delete log) who deleted the initial page before proceeding to create the page. Joseph Carraro also wasn't a paid project. I had to subscribe to a website that kept newspaper archives to reference the page has it has been vandalized before. Then, EnrgTech was also undisclosed paid editing, it was at the same time that I was contacted for Molding Messengers. I'm really sorry that I forgot to mention about EnrgTech previously. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about Jasmit Phulka? On Commons you stated that you were in contact with the subject of the article. (Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding about how copyright works but that's an issue for Commons.) --SVTCobra 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra:, I asked him for the copyright license via Instagram comment. And then he sent it via DM. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there was no paid editing? You just suddenly felt the urge to create a page about a Canadian wrestler? --SVTCobra 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra:, I am Canadian. He's a part of team Canada that were supposed to represent Canada in the Olympics but unfortunately they didn't qualify for the Olympics. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me start by saying I believe you are being economical with the truth. I should also add that Blablubbs & Yamla are top notch and their verdicts are stellar & are rarely ever wrong. Furthermore in order for us to help you, you must come clean, absolutely clean and tell the whole truth which may allow for some level of clemency anything less than the whole truth is doing yourself a major disservice, you’d be surprised how much telling the whole truth can help you. Furthermore why are you binge requesting for an unblock? It is disruptive and counter productive, & indicative of one “who is in a rush” your next step as I have stated & as suggested by my senior colleague; Kuru, should be to tell the whole truth, partial truth equates to being deliberately mendacious which I’m sorry to say means you are not the ideal candidate for this collaborative project. Lastly except you comply with what has been stated by others about telling the whole truth pertaining to sock puppetry and paid editing. I’m sorry but I’m going to humbly insist you remain indefinitely blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007:, thanks for this reply. I guess I'll just state how my journey on Wikipedia has been by giving reasons why I made every single edits I've made here on Wikipedia. I hope that helps. If it doesn't, please let me know. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007:, the only reason why I'm 'binge' requesting is because from what I read, a blocked editor should request for an unblock with reasons in response to the reasons stated by the reviewer. If nothing could be done about this and the indef means forever then there's no need to try. I'm already making a draft explaining the reason behind most of my edits. That's the only thing I can do, right? Ugochukwu75 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible sock

@Kuru:, @SVTCobra:

Can someone check into Waldemarwall (talk) as another possible sock of this account? Seems likely - an account that creted an article right off the bat, and that article is under deletion discussion (Stefan Leipold). Ugochukwu75 is the main editor, voted "Keep", and the Waldemarwall is the only other one to add a significant amount of work to that article. The "references" are all publicity puff pieces from unreliable sources, much like his others. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a sock, but the reviewers can check that out too. The only account I've created on wiki asides this particular one is Binaza. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated to Waldemarwall. Obviously, I cannot rule out WP:MEAT. --Yamla (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: please look more into it. Because I don't have any friend, family or whatsoever who is on Wikipedia. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no tools to "look more into it". Regardless of your assertion, Ugochukwu75, there's no telling if you have had off-wiki contact with other paid editors. You could have met them wherever it was you picked up your paid editing gigs. --SVTCobra 19:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: Same way, I can't think of any other way to say that I have no idea who that person is. I'm really serious about this. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a TON of material from your talk page on October 28 (this edit) that dealt with suspicions of paid editing and sock puppetry, all of which you denied. Now you're partially admitting to paid editing and operating another account - but only in the specific instances that you were definitely caught in. Personally, based on all of that behavior, I don't believe a single word you type at this point. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also - I would like to know who contacted you about creating an article for Lisa Hoggarth. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted 'a TON of material' from my talk page because I found out that it's not against the Wiki rules after seeing you do that on your talk page. That Binaza account was created for my sister who is into the beautifician stuffs. I have no idea if she was contacted to create a wiki page or not. Can you let me complete my draft, please? Ugochukwu75 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]