User talk:Leckson58

Welcome

Hello, Leckson58, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 15:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Welcome to my talk page. Drop your message and I'll reply soon. Thanks for stoping by.

Please don't try to correct quotations

as you did at Jamia Millia Islamia. And "comity" has nothing to do with "committee", look it up. Thanks for your efforts but you need to take more care. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VERIFY

Many of our articles on villages are dreadful, no sources or poor sources, and often treating Wikipedia as a tourist guide. See WP:ISNOT. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paystack (May 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lapablo was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paystack 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:Paystack, 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, 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.

Lapablo (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leckson58! 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! Lapablo (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MBH Corporation Plc (June 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:MBH Corporation Plc 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:MBH Corporation Plc, 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, 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:MBH Corporation Plc has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:MBH Corporation Plc. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MBH Corporation Plc (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Amkgp was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia is not a place for WP:PROMOTION whether you are paid or not.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:MBH Corporation Plc 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:MBH Corporation Plc, 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, 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.

~ Amkgp ✉ 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello Leckson58. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:MBH Corporation Plc, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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:Leckson58. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Leckson58|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. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:59, 12 June 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).

Leckson58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block by Yunshui is justified and I'm guilty as charged. I am guilty of sock puppetry as I was not aware of it. I'll not repeat the action again. I'll comply and follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines moving forward. Thanks

Decline reason:

You will need to go further than that to restore the community's trust. Please name the other accounts that you have used. Also, have you performed edits for pay? MER-C 14:11, 28 June 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.

You can find other sockpuppets of this account here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Leckson58 and anytime I'm making a paid edit, I try to disclose to the best of my ability which you can see if you check the user pages of the sockpuppetsLeckson (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:MBH Corporation Plc

Hello, Leckson58. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "MBH Corporation Plc".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:57, 11 February 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).

Leckson58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've learned from my mistakes and I would like to be given a second chance at editing. I promise to not violate any policy and to abide by the rules and regulation of wikipedia Leckson (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the questions raised by your previous request. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2022 (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.

331dot Thank you very much for your response but, to be honest with you, I do not understand the comment you left on the request. Please explain in detail so I can work on fixing it. Thanks once again Leckson (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a category of your sock puppets, is that all of them? You kinda suggest that you have edited for payment but don't come out and say so. You will also need to describe what contributions you want to make. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.

That was all of them. Yes I have edited for pay and I mentioned all the pages I was paid to edit on all of my user pages. I sincerely didn't know about a rule against duplicate accounts when I ran into the suck puppetry ban. I am personally looking to work on Wikipedia articles in need of help on the community board. Leckson (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You knew perfectly well about WP:SOCK given that you were caught evading it in August 2020 as shown by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leckson58/Archive. You set up Parvenu58 a year later. Are you seriously trying to claim you didn't know about WP:SOCK at that point?!? --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I setup Parvenu58 a year later to get a clean start since all of my request to unblock my original account didn't go through. If you look closely at my contributions using Parvenu58, I have refrained from any activity that can lead to violation of Wikipedia's policy. I declare when I'm paid to edit and I contribute to the articles in need of copyediting on the community board which I enjoy doing. Leckson (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, apart from every edit violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE? --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very honest with you here please understand my point.

When the first ban happened, I mailed Yunshui as to how I can make amends and he was of little help. I waited a year and created Parvenu123 and shortly after I stopped editing entirely as the process kept becoming harder to follow and get out of.

I created Parvenu58 a year later not to evade or be on the wrong side of the law but the have a fresh start and be of help to the community by contributing on pages in need of improvement. Leckson (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose unblocking this user at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

I want to let you know we all make mistakes, and as hard as it is to believe mine was out of ignorance, I'll like you to remember we are all human. Behind online monikers and usernames, people exist with emotions and I will never violate a policy fully knowing I'm breaking the law.

This whole situation happened out of ignorance from my part at the very beginning and every time I look for help as to how I can make amends, I get little to no support and I keep digging my grave deeper.

It would be nice if we are much kinder to people we interact with online, I'm not trying to game the system, I'm trying to help the community and make a honest living if need be and its sad most don't seem to see that. Leckson (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2022 (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).

Leckson58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've explained myself repeatedly that I'm not trying to game the system. I want to be a given a second chance at editing, I want a clean start and I am ready to follow all wikipedia policies to the letter Leckson (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were just caught engaging in sock puppetry. You could try the standard offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2022 (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).

Leckson58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have stayed away from editing and I have learned from my mistakes. I'll never engage in any behaviour that violates the policies of this community again. I'm ready to start over. Thanks. Leckson (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not eligible for WP:SO at this time. Nor does this convince me your future edits would be appropriate. Yamla (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2022 (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.

The standard offer generally looks for six months away, this is only three. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I've been away for more than 6 months now. Can you please reconsider. Thank you. Leckson (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2023 (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).

Leckson58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wiki Admins,

I understand that my past actions may have caused some concern and resulted in my editing privileges being revoked. However, I want to assure you that I have taken the time to reflect on my mistakes and have made a conscious effort to improve.

I am eager to be given a second chance to demonstrate my commitment to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and regulations. I am confident in my ability to make valuable contributions and believe that this opportunity will allow me to prove my worth as a responsible and trustworthy editor.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to the possibility of being able to make positive changes to Wikipedia again.

Sincerely, Leckson58.Leckson (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as stale(I also removed your duplicate request made later, only one open request is needed at a time, please). You may make a new, hopefully more persuasive, request. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2023 (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).

Leckson58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been away for more than 6 months. I know I broke the rules and I'm willing and ready to make amends and help in a way that's according to the rule and law Leckson (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If this was intended to be the above-mentioned "more persuasive request", I'm afraid it's not; it does not address the reasons behind the block or what specifically will be done to improve it at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 25 May 2023 (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.