User talk:BadEdithor

Hello BadEdithor. The nature of your edits 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:BadEdithor. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=BadEdithor|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. Theroadislong (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't paid and I haven't edited any article on Wikipedia to avoid issues, but I'm close to the management of the subject, I wasn't paid to edit here and I have not edited any article, as you said, I asked that it should be restored and also, an expert admin or author should handle the editing in the Wikipedia Teahouse to avoid issues, also what i can contribute is sources directly to the author or in the article talk page to make the article stay instead of editing it myself. That is why i asked in the teahouse if it was the right thing to do? BadEdithor (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The right thing to do is to quit wasting our time. How does an editor barely 21 hours old know what a G5 is? How does a 21 hour old editor know to ask for a page to be created or know the venue to ask for such? It’s really like a good friend once told me you lot aren’t as smart as you think. Celestina007 (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the G5 on the page after attempted creation,had to pause and request instead, read about it, also I saw that it can be requested to be created which an author said I can do, so I instead of trying to create the article myself, had to ask from the authors anywhere I can seek help here, if it's wrong of me, then I will gladly try out others.

Besides, I read about Wikipedia all the time, I'm a content developer and if I'm getting it wrong, I think I should be led to the right track. On the G5 banned user, if you attempt to create the page, you will see it there as an error, also on the side of asking for creation, it's there when searching for the subject, also, teahouse renders help which I also came across. I was told I can ask questions which I gladly, I was also asked to request for undeletion by an author in the teahouse which I did, I followed procedure, I never attempted to flout the policies here. BadEdithor (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that the advice on the Teahouse that you should request undeletion was made without knowledge of the full situation, and that the editor in question knows they gave bad advice, so please save us all a lot of time and do not request undeletion.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)l[reply]

I understand now,thanks for the update, so what's the way forward?

Should ignore the article because of issues and try out others? BadEdithor (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Connection Issue With Kaptain Kush Management

I, BadEdithor, declare to being connected to Kaptain Kush's management, not the subject in question but i am not and wasn't in anyway compensated or asked to edit the article, any edit in Kaptain Kush that I intend to make would be suggested on the article's talk page as well. BadEdithor (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article does not exist, nor likely to exist in the near future (hence no article Talk page), if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, look for other articles to improve. A common recommendation is to learn more about editing before trying to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD, an SPI was opened and it seems to link this “new editor” to the already blocked editor. Safe to say a block on this account is coming sooner than later. Celestina007 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be surprised. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation closed without action. Clerk opined that maybe a case of more than one editor pursuing paid editing. Did not block BadE because declared paid on User page. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi BadEdithor! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Omah Lay, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi BadEdithor! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wiki Music Criteria, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "LoneWrita". The reason given for LoneWrita's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anniebisilolo".</nowiki>

Decline reason:

Declined. I specifically did not block you earlier because I was willing to assume good faith that you weren't connected to the other paid editors working on Kaptain Kush, and yet you're using the same computer as at least one of them. You have been blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2020 (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.

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Anniebisilolo per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anniebisilolo. 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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I declared being connected to Kaptain Kush's management on my talk page and userpage recently due to sock, I work for the management and they have a public PC which I used today to make edit, unknown to me that it was same PC that was connected to the block investigation which led to autoblock. The IP was blocked and using the same PC led to me being blocked, I would be happy if I'm unblocked since I made a declaration earlier as asked of me. I'm connected to Kaptain Kush management, I'm worker in the company and I have admitted to this before, I wish to be unblocked for the reason that I made a declaration earlier BadEdithor (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You declared being connected to the subject's management, but you did not declare your connection to the previous blocked accounts which apparently used the same PC to write their earlier articles about the subject. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 28 December 2020 (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.

Thanks for your feedback, Girth Summit, It's a company PC I used, which belongs to the management, I had no idea about the blocked user, all I did as a worker was to use the PC to make edit. Since the case is like this, what do you suggest I do to get the block lifted since Wikipedia disallow the creation of multiple accounts? BadEdithor (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can suggest is that you make another unblock request, fully outlining the situation. Like, how are you connected with the management? If you are using a computer in their office, it kind of sounds like you're employed by them - which you have not declared. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest I declare being employed by the management too? Or just submit another unblock request? BadEdithor (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given links to the paid editing guidelines often enough for you to find your way there. If you submit another unblock request, you should be sure to include full disclosure of your employer, clients etc., as instructed in those guidelines. If I'm honest, I'm not sure that anyone will be willing to unblock you given the history here, but you are not prohibited from asking. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Funmi Awelewa

Hello, BadEdithor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Funmi Awelewa, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked from editing, can the page be awarded to somebody else to edit? BadEdithor (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Funmi Awelewa

Hello, BadEdithor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Funmi Awelewa".

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. If 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!} 19:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]