User talk:Wade1der

Hell o

Is this the Pete Wade? I guess it must be as you go by wade1der. Any news on the MNDR album? Just recently got the Caligula 12". Beautiful. I love the never-ending "F".

I'm sure you get asked this all the time but... Do you employ? I would love a J.O.B.

--Beautiful&Dying (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MNDR may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| Fourclops ::)<ref>http://fourclops.com/</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Peter Wade Keusch was accepted

Peter Wade Keusch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: WonderSound (August 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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:WonderSound and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Revent^talk 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wade1der, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Revent^talk 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:WonderSound concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:WonderSound, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:WonderSound

Hello Wade1der. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "WonderSound".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:WonderSound}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Intheair2night. Thank you. snapsnap ^(talk) 07:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Wade1der (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully request to be unblocked as I believe the accusation of sockpuppetry is based on a misunderstanding and lacks sufficient evidence to justify the block. I am a member of the musical group associated with the Wikipedia page I was editing. My edits aimed to correct what I believed to be misrepresented information about certain releases by reclassifying them.

When my updates did not remain on the page, I mentioned the issue to my management company. Without my knowledge, they attempted to make edits on my behalf, which may have created the appearance of coordination. However, I did not use multiple accounts, log in from other locations, or attempt to disguise my activity.

Given that sockpuppetry is a technical policy violation and not related to content disputes, the block seems excessive without definitive proof. My sole purpose was to ensure the page accurately represented the work of my group. I now understand Wikipedia’s policies better and will work collaboratively with other editors to achieve consensus on any changes.

Thank you for considering my request, and I hope to return as a constructive contributor to Wikipedia.

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=I respectfully request to be unblocked as I believe the accusation of sockpuppetry is based on a misunderstanding and lacks sufficient evidence to justify the block. I am a member of the musical group associated with the Wikipedia page I was editing. My edits aimed to correct what I believed to be misrepresented information about certain releases by reclassifying them.

When my updates did not remain on the page, I mentioned the issue to my management company. Without my knowledge, they attempted to make edits on my behalf, which may have created the appearance of coordination. However, I did not use multiple accounts, log in from other locations, or attempt to disguise my activity.

Given that sockpuppetry is a technical policy violation and not related to content disputes, the block seems excessive without definitive proof. My sole purpose was to ensure the page accurately represented the work of my group. I now understand Wikipedia’s policies better and will work collaboratively with other editors to achieve consensus on any changes.

Thank you for considering my request, and I hope to return as a constructive contributor to Wikipedia. |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=I respectfully request to be unblocked as I believe the accusation of sockpuppetry is based on a misunderstanding and lacks sufficient evidence to justify the block. I am a member of the musical group associated with the Wikipedia page I was editing. My edits aimed to correct what I believed to be misrepresented information about certain releases by reclassifying them.

When my updates did not remain on the page, I mentioned the issue to my management company. Without my knowledge, they attempted to make edits on my behalf, which may have created the appearance of coordination. However, I did not use multiple accounts, log in from other locations, or attempt to disguise my activity.

Given that sockpuppetry is a technical policy violation and not related to content disputes, the block seems excessive without definitive proof. My sole purpose was to ensure the page accurately represented the work of my group. I now understand Wikipedia’s policies better and will work collaboratively with other editors to achieve consensus on any changes.

Thank you for considering my request, and I hope to return as a constructive contributor to Wikipedia. |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=I respectfully request to be unblocked as I believe the accusation of sockpuppetry is based on a misunderstanding and lacks sufficient evidence to justify the block. I am a member of the musical group associated with the Wikipedia page I was editing. My edits aimed to correct what I believed to be misrepresented information about certain releases by reclassifying them.

When my updates did not remain on the page, I mentioned the issue to my management company. Without my knowledge, they attempted to make edits on my behalf, which may have created the appearance of coordination. However, I did not use multiple accounts, log in from other locations, or attempt to disguise my activity.

Given that sockpuppetry is a technical policy violation and not related to content disputes, the block seems excessive without definitive proof. My sole purpose was to ensure the page accurately represented the work of my group. I now understand Wikipedia’s policies better and will work collaboratively with other editors to achieve consensus on any changes.

Thank you for considering my request, and I hope to return as a constructive contributor to Wikipedia. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hello there! Given that you were editing a page related to a band you are a part of, you should review Wikipedia's guidelines on handling conflicts of interest. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your response. As I mentioned in my unblock request, I now have a better understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines including conflicts of interest. I acknowledge the importance of adhering to these policies and am fully committed to abiding by them moving forward.

My intention was always to ensure accurate representation of the band's work, and I now understand my approach was inappropriate. I appreciate the guidance and the opportunity to clarify my intentions. Wade1der (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything you want to edit about other than your band? 331dot (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. While I don’t have specific topics in mind at the moment, I am an expert in music production, engineering, history, and culture and would appreciate the opportunity to contribute in the future.

Regarding the block, I believe it was based on speculation, as there is no evidence of sockpuppetry on my part and I am not a sockpuppet. I respectfully request that this be reconsidered so I can continue participating on Wikipedia in accordance with its guidelines should I choose to contribute further. Wade1der (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector - I'm inclined to unblock here, CU shows no sign of block evasion, they have been made aware of the COI guidance, any renewed inappropriate editing about subjects they are connected to could be dealt with easily enough. Any concerns? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: no concerns here if you've run CU. For purposes of compliance I think Wade1der should make a paid editor declaration with respect to the articles in their history that they edited through their COI prior to their block, even if they no longer intend to edit those articles, but that's all I can think of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]