Jump to content

User talk:Skhofeni

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sibongile Mani (July 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information.
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 after they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Skhofeni! Having an article draft 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! Dan arndt (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Millyz (July 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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 people). 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 after they have been resolved.
PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Millyz (July 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Akevsharma 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 people). 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 after they have been resolved.
Akevsharma (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sibongile Mani (July 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend 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 people). 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:
Appears to be WP:BIO1E.
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 after they have been resolved.
Gusfriend (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mihlali Ndamase (July 5)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Xclusivzik 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 people). 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 after they have been resolved.
Xclusivzik (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Draft:Mihlali Ndamase, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Diannaa, Thanks for the advise. I'm going through the policy and guidelines. I'm willing to learn as I go Skhofeni (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Uncle Waffles (July 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Like the past deletions, no evidence of notability, the spotify charts are meaningless.
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 after they have been resolved.
PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Praxidicae. Though the subject has a broad scope. The references do secures inclusion. The Google trends profile here - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Uncle%20waffles&geo=ZA show that the subject I widely and highly searched in South Africa. The UK tour link also supports that the subject met international recognition. The article at least qualifies as stub. If possible administrator's experience might be of good help. Thanks Skhofeni (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google trends is worthless. As I stated here and the many other times this has been deleted: the sources simply aren't sufficient. It doesn't qualify for a stub. It doesn't qualify for inclusion. An administrator doesn't make editorial decisions with their tools. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you. Maybe I will have to put a discussion on the article and see what others editors have to say about it since the Wikipedia approval doesn't really base on one editor. Thanks Skhofeni (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Stevence SA per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevence SA. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bbb23. Why am I being blocked? I request that proper investigation be conducted. This I a mistake... My account has never been in violation of policy since opened. What's the meaning of this? Skhofeni (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

I would kindly request that proper transperent investigations be conducted. My account just got blocked from editing. And since I joined Wikipedia feww days ago and made over 100 uncontested edits. I have never been in the wrong. I made a request about a subject that I was aware that it previously under intense abuse by other editors who happened to join before me. I also agree to the enforcement of policy. But my account is innocent. You can also check my IP address for further sock puppet investigations. Please unblock me. I believe I was blocked to stop me from becoming an editor on this website. Please look into the matter Skhofeni (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A Checkuser may be done, but it is rarely about proving the suspect's innocence. In any event this is more about how you've edited than where you're editing from. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 7 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.

Yes. I see this is about where I have edited from. And I edited. The subject that got me blocked.. If you look at the style of editing from the one of user I'm accused of sock puppet. It's different. I have a unique style and format for writing articles. Please initiate a check user to check for any relationship between the past user accounts blocked under Stevence SA. I'm not part of those disruptive group of accounts. Please reconsider my request. Skhofeni (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Second Unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

As I have mentioned a number of factors above in my first unblock request. I believe and understand the reason that that led to my account being block listed. The subject here Draft:Uncle Waffles has been under strokes of abuse historically in its entirety. When I first created this account a week ago. I was not aware that the subject title had been severely abused. I did my research on subjects I joined Wikipedia to create. My intentions were to only abide by policy and work my way up as a trusted editor. I want to refrain from working on this subject any longer as this is affecting my future on wikipedia. I will work on subjects that meet criteria and deserve placement. As I present my request. I would kindly like to stress a few factors. First it's the IP address which in this case will give clarity on where the previous edits where made, secondly its the style and format of the article. The difference is supposed to be huge because I'm pretty much sure that the editor I'm associated with regarding sock puppet were only a manace group. It's clear that they did not familiarize themselves with policy and and guidelines. Thus led to them creating more accounts instead of requesting an UNBLOCK REQUEST. I humble myself to the administrators to really look at these case with the intent to clarify the sock puppetry I'm accused of. And to further distinguish the manace group of accounts that edited before me. I hope this will help constitute me an acceptance as I have further demonstrated honest editorial experience. Thank you Skhofeni (talk) 4:26 am, 7 July 2022, Thursday (1 month, 7 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

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.

Unblock discussion

[edit]

What's the manace group? Is that a ring of undeclared paid editors? Of course, you've raised the question of whether you are a competing undeclared paid editor? Please read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID. Since that spectre seems to haunt your new article creations, would you be willing to help build Wikipedia in other ways than new article creation? Such a WP:TOPICBAN would be appealable in after six months of constructive editing. Of course any other admin should feel free to accept or decline the current request if they see fit. Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The manace group.. I'm referring to previous ip addresses that created article that had me blocked. Yes your advice on me having to develop Wikipedia than creating new article seems smart to me. I will do. But with sock puppet I'm not associated. As I have stated that the user who which I'm accused of sock puppet.. Created new user accounts without even considering an unblock request. This is prove that I'm not related to the users that created those articles. Skhofeni (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eager to unblock, but the lingering doubt is whether you were recruited to edit Draft:Uncle Waffles, whether you would receive compensation, including in kind, non monetary consideration, or whether you hae some other off-wiki connection. Paid editing is not against the rules. Only [[WP:PAID|undisclosed paid editing. Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not compensated for editing on wikipedia. The wizard asked be if ever I'm being paid to edit and I said no because I'm not. Asking me this now does not seem to relevant now. I only trying to point out what would serve as presentation of evidence and testimony. To really prove that I'm not paid to create Draft:Uncle Waffles. The article can be protected or even salted for prevention of further vandalism. I'm just suggesting. Hope this will help me be considered for unblocking Skhofeni (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skhofeni&oldid=1104121274"