User talk:Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

This is Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.'s talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modern Practitioner Research (September 1)

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

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 User:Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq./sandbox/Modern Practitioner Research 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 User:Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq./sandbox/Modern Practitioner Research, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.! 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! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello, I'm Velella. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Practitioner research, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Practitioner research. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Practitioner research ‎, you may be blocked from editing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Practitioner research. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 19:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN APPEAL TO BE UNBLOCKED

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).

Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Alex, I humbly appeal that you unblock me. I have read the policy concerning advert. I now understand what you meant by advert. Although our definition about it may be different in law, that is your policy. As an editor with you, I am bound by it. It is on this ground I humbly appeal you unblock me. I have tried reaching you through the procedure stated on my user page but I could not. Hence I have resorted to this medium. With respect, I expect your kind consideration. Thanks. Warm regards. Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

Decline reason:

You will also need to address your sock puppetry, as noted below. The sock puppetry does not give me confidence that you understand what you did wrong here or that you will follow our policies. As such, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2019 (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.

Possible socking

I notice that your "friend" Idiabeta is also editing the same page and in the same manner. I would strongly urge that this account stops editing or there is a very strong risk that both that account and yours may be permanently blocked for sock puppetry. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alexf,

I started editing with Wiki before I opened an account in my name as Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. In fact, I started it on my pad. Now that I am getting used to the Wiki community rules, I will do well to abide by them. I have not done any edit in that account since you blocked me. You can check my edit history whether as Idiabeta or Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

Thanks.

Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. I have fixed up your last message so that admins would notice it but I don't intend to continue. If you want an admin to see your message, please read the very clear instructions above and implement them. If you are trying to convince the community that you are both willing and able to abide by the rules here yet cannot format your own response correctly, then you may not be in the right place . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]