User talk:Larsody

This is Larsody'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: Evans Woherem (September 13)

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Evans Woherem and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Jamiebuba (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Larsody! 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! Jamiebuba (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on my draft article about Evans Woherem. I understand that my references do not currently show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I'm committed to writing a high-quality article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and I'm eager to learn from you.

In the meantime, I'm open to any specific feedback you have on my references. Larsody (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal this block

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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 102.89.40.155. Place any further information here. I am been busy working on my article while I am busy working on it, this open proxy block disrupt my work. Please kindly unblock my IP Address. I look forward to a favorable response from you. Thanks Larsody (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have edited since making this request, so you are not currently affected by a block. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 19 September 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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adekunle Adebiyi (September 20)

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

Reads like a Resume.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adekunle Adebiyi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Jamiebuba (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamiebuba,

Thanks for your comment on my Wikipedia page. I appreciate you taking the time to read it and provide feedback.

I agree that some sections of the article do read a bit like a résumé. I'm still working on developing my writing style for Wikipedia, and I'm always looking for ways to improve.

Could you please let me know which specific sections you think need to be rewritten? I'm happy to make changes to make the article more encyclopedic and informative.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Sincerely, Larsody (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gambian government stubs has been nominated for deletion

Category:Gambian government stubs has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adekunle Adebiyi (September 21)

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

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:

Written like a WP:PROMO and resume.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adekunle Adebiyi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Jamiebuba (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adekunle Adebiyi (September 25)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Tagishsimon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is promotional copy. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.

Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagishsimon

I am writing to appeal the decision on my draft article. I have made a number of changes to the draft, including removing the promotional part and adding new sources. I am confident that my draft now meets all of your requirements, and I would be grateful if you would reconsider your decision. Larsody (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello Larsody. 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:Larsody. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Larsody|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. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 331dot,

Thank you for your feedback. I understand that you are concerned about the nature of my edits and whether or not I have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic.

I want to assure you that I am not paid in any way to edit Wikipedia. I am a volunteer editor who is passionate about making Wikipedia a more accurate and informative resource for everyone.

I understand that it is important to disclose any financial conflicts of interest when editing Wikipedia. I have never received any compensation for my editing, and I do not have any financial stake in any of the topics that I edit.

I apologize if my edits have given the impression that I have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic. I will try to be more careful in the future to make my edits more neutral and objective.

Thank you again for your feedback. I appreciate your help in making Wikipedia a better place.

Sincerely, Larsody (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will need to explain how you came to take a photo of Mr. Adebiyi. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

331dot

I took the picture at recent event in Abeokuta, Ogun State. During this event, I had the opportunity of spending time with him to discuss about Telecommunication and IT generally. I will like to stress that I obtained Mr. Adebiyi's explicit permission before taking the photo. Larsody (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This means that you have a conflict of interest that you must disclose. Click that link for instructions. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the photograph? Larsody (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but you still must declare your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would rewrite the article and adhere to your observations. Larsody (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is now the way out of this Larsody (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you must first appeal to the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't use a bot to compose your response. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Larsody (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also obtain permission from Mr. Kah to take his photo? You seem to have access to a lot of people. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to declare at least two conflicts of interest. If you do not do this soon, you will be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me how to go about this, I have gone through the COI, kindly show me how to declare it. You said two conflicts of interest? Larsody (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI explains how to disclose. You also took a photo of Mr. Kah, apparently in his home. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your next edit is anything other than an attempt to add a COI disclosure, I will block you from editing. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the COI disclosure already Larsody (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you do this? 331dot (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Adekunle_Adebiyi#Some_proposed_changes. Please help me to check if I have done it well. Larsody (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That says you read the guidelines, not that you have a conflict of interest. If you read my initial message at the top of this section("September 2023") instructions are provided on how to disclose. You will need to do this for the two people we've already discussed, as well as anyone else you intend to edit about for whom you have met. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I need you to help me and guide me on how to go about declaring the COI, I am willing to learn and improve on the best practices on Wikipedia. I would like to use this medium to thank you for your thank as well. Is this the right way to declare the COI in the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Adekunle_Adebiyi#Some_proposed_changes.? Larsody (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you any more than I have. Is there something specific that you do not understand about the instructions provided above? If you find the coding too challenging, you may just write a statement on your user page(User:Larsody) saying something to the effect of "I have a conflict of interest with regards to Adekunle Adebiyi and Muhammadou Kah". 331dot (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a COI for Evans Woherem as well, it seems. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not have for him Larsody (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe your claim of not being a paid editor, maybe someone else will, but not me- and you've been nothing but evasive with me. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have been honest with you in my answer. That is the truth. I have not been paid in so ever to do this. Larsody (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's out of my hands now, you may make an unblock request as instructed. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that, I have told you the truth. I followed all your instructions not because I am desperate about my draft to pass or to be approved, it is just the zeal to know more how Wikipedia works which I believe you can guide me. I have learnt a lot about Wikipedia through your tutelage. Larsody (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I confirmed that I have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
With all honesty, I have not been compensated in whatsoever means either directly or indirectly for my edits, on the case of Adekunle Adebiyi, I have explained how I got the his pictures during an event in Ogun State in my previous posts, my testimony is the truth. If you checked Kah page, it is still a work in progress and I am still working on it and I have never seen Kah before or had any relationship with him. The same with Evans Woherem. This is a volunteer thing, I just wanted to add my own quota to Wikipedia not for any gains whatsoever. I opened this page in 2021, I don't have the time due to my Ph.D program, I have not done any edits until last three weeks that I started to do something on my page now that I am through with my studies. Anyways I have learnt my lessons but let me reemphasize it here again, I have not been paid for what I have done on Wikipedia and I will not collect anything for my edits. It is just the joy I have for writing and research. Nothing more!
In the future, I will make sure before I share anything that will have conflict with my interest like the picture of Adekunle Adebiyi, it is a must for me to declare it on my talk page.
I would like to commend all the editors that have helped me so far, thank you. Now, I have learnt how to write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, avoiding promotional language or bias on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not adequately address the promotional editing (whether paid or not), nor does it address the more recent block applied since this unblock request was made. - Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 29 September 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.

Larsody (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can know why this account is blocked indefinitely? I don't understand. Larsody (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been confirmed with technical evidence to be editing along with other undeclared paid editors. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How? All these claims are false. Larsody (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more to say to you. Someone will eventually review- and probably decline- your request. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing is a voluntary activity for whoever that wants to contribute as long he/she abide with the Wikipedia Guidelines. I don't see this as do or die affair. You are even sure that my request will be decline "Someone will eventually review- and probably decline- your request."

If that is the case, then no problem.

But, I said, I am not a paid editor. I do not know what to say again to prove to the community that I am doing this for the love I have for writing and research. Larsody (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for unblock

Yesterday I was blocked from editing Wikipedia, and I believe that it was due to a case of mistaken identity. I been pondering on this matter since yesterday when I saw the message that Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that my user account has been or may be used abusively. I am wondering how this happened when I received two blocks in less than 24 hours interval. I have never engaged in any disruptive or abusive behavior on Wikipedia, and I am not aware of anyone else using my account to do so.

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over two years, and I have over 41 edits. I have a good reputation on the site, and I am committed to contributing to Wikipedia in a positive and constructive way.

I would be grateful if you could take the time to review my case. I am attaching my IP address [User:197.210.76.120] to this request. I am also happy to provide any other information that you may need.

I am a lover of knowledge as I have emphasized in my previous posts, and I hope that you will give me the opportunity to clear my name and resume editing

Thank you for your time and consideration. Larsody (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have an open request above, only one open request is needed. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks are not same the same thing. Your block 331dot says "Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use." while Drmies says Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively.

In my opinion, I don't think the two blocks are saying the same thing. I need to appeal all those blocks. For record purpose, I will also share my IP address [User:102.89.46.207] to see that the service provider in my country are solely responsible for my IP address. If you observed closely, you see that the IP address keep changing. This is the main reason why I am appealing to blocks. Larsody (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block by Drmies superseded my block. You still do not need separate requests for each block- you may have a single request that discusses both aspects because both aspects must be addressed in order to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are making the unblock of a thing more difficult, and in my opinion, it shouldn't be the case. Larsody (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult it is to get unblocked is completely up to you and how honest you are with us. For example, it is demonstratably false that you "I have never seen Kah before or had any relationship with him" as you took a picture of him in his home. You may make a new request for someone else to review, but you are quickly running out of chances. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The honest truth is that I did not take the picture of Kah at his residence. I used the word using my knowledge of Kah's appearance and the background was created by myself using figma and remove.bg, the picture was taken from publicly available information while the background was done by myself. I have strong skill in html, CSS, JavaScript and UI/UX. I wanted to create something that doesn't exit on the internet space, that was why I did that. If you look at the page of Kah, is an ongoing work, also trying to get more information about him and creating many other page for Gambia that is not on Wikipedia. I am doing this for the passion I have for writing and research, not for anything else.

I would be glad if you can believe my testimony, that is the truth. Larsody (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't deny a relationship with Kah until now- and you removed the image after you were asked to disclose a COI. By saying you took the image from another location- aside from lying about the copyright- you have potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. It's not up to me, but either you lied about the copyright or lied about being a paid editor, so the chances of your being unblocked are low. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't lie about the copyright, I have told what I did to the photograph and how I used the word "took a picture of him in his home." What you saw in the picture was my content, I have not put Wikipedia in any legal jeopardy and I have followed the rule of Wikimedia and have not violated any of their rules.

You have all the internet to prove to me that the picture was not my content and I don't own the copyright of it. Please, prove to me the picture is existing on the internet. Also, prove to me that it is not possible to use those tools I mentioned in my previous response cannot be used to arrive at what you saw in the photograph. I have shown you the tools I used to arrive at what you seen in the picture.

In my opinion, you are not honest with me, and with you comment above:

"By saying you took the image from another location- aside from lying about the copyright- you have potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. It's not up to me, but either you lied about the copyright or lied about being a paid editor, so the chances of your being unblocked are low."

Let me point out those things you mentioned in your statement that are not true:

1. You said "You didn't deny a relationship with Kah until now". This is not true, see my previous response to this "I have never seen Kah before or had any relationship with him" even you said and quoted me in your previous query, please see it yourself. You are making things more difficult, and this is not good, honestly speaking.

2. You said "you removed the image after you were asked to disclose a COI." But I didn't remove it from here. 331dot, this is main reason you blocked my account indefinitely "Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use." Please, why are you going back and forth on this same question that I have answered.

3.You said "By saying you took the image from another location- aside from lying about the copyright" - This is not true, I didn't say I took the image from another location, see my response "The honest truth is that I did not take the picture of Kah at his residence. I used the word using my knowledge of Kah's appearance and the background was created by myself using figma and remove.bg, the picture was taken from publicly available information while the background was done by myself." 331dot please tell me how I have violated the copyright rule? In what ways have I lied?

4. You said "you have potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy" - This is not also true, with the help of those tools I mentioned in my previous response, I strongly believe, I have not put the Wikipedia in any comatose. Please kindly explain to me why you think I have put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, do you think, I cannot use those tools I mentioned in my previous response or you have forgotten that knowledge is universal irrespective of the race, ethnicity, region or where you come from? The world is advancing everyday!

5. You said "either you lied about the copyright or lied about being a paid editor" - This is not also true, I have not lied about the copyright or lied about being paid editor. I am not being paid for what I have done so far or what I will do in the future Wikipedia if you will believe my testimony, it is the love of I have for research and writing.

Let me close with my usual word "I would be glad if you can believe my testimony, that is the truth." Larsody (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that you photoshopped the photo by compositing an image(it doesn't appear to be, but maybe you are just good at it) of Kah with a different background, that is still a copyright violation as you are using someone else's image. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have made up your mind about this issue, I would like you pin-point with reference to your submission "that is still a copyright violation as you are using someone else's image." Do you any copyright for the image of Kah that I uploaded, that is presently available that I have violated?

I said this same photograph is not a press photo, I asked you to search the internet where you have seen the same photograph, I told you what I have done to arrive at this photograph in my previous response.

The intention behind the derivative work of mine is to have a photograph of Kah that represent my write-up about him and that does not violate the rules of Wikipedia.

Why the back and forth? Larsody (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide copyright of the image of Kah that I uploaded, that is presently available that I have violated that have put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Larsody (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to provide you with the copyright. By your own admission you claim got the image of this man from somewhere else. Wherever you got it from holds the copyright. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that you know how I arrived at the photograph and the photograph is the derivative work of mine effort, I hold the copyright. I haven't broken any rules of Wikipedia. Larsody (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are in error about your understanding of copyright and I don't believe you composited the image together anyway. You clearly aren't going to give me a straight answer so I'm done playing games with you. Good day. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any error of copyright, I have a full understanding of copyright, I am in academia. Now, I know your intentions!

Now, you are saying the truth, this shows that no matter how far I could go to tell you that I composited the image, you won't believe me. And this shows you are also playing games with me, which I believe, is against the intentions of creating the Wikipedia.

I asked you many questions and you failed to answer any, simply because you are playing games with me and this doesn't speak well on the Wikipedia editors. Larsody (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a new unblock request for review by someone else to see if you can sell this story to them. If they want to unblock you, they will. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Wikipedia is a voluntary activity. It is not a do or die affair. Honestly speaking, I expect you to be a good teacher and coach.

Since, you don't believe my story, no problem my conscience is clear. Larsody (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the questions I asked are meant to clarify those things you pointed out in your query but you did not explain any instead you are going back and forth and playing games with me. Honestly, this is not good and I am not happy. Also, this also means you are playing on my intelligent. I told you tools used, but you didn't not believe me. Larsody (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you created the image of Kah, then you are a master and should be using your talents to generate propaganda for your government or the CIA. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I acknowledge and understand the concerns raised in the previous decline reason, and I would like to address them directly: *Promotional Editing: I recognize the importance of maintaining a neutral, encyclopedic tone and avoiding promotional language or bias on Wikipedia. I understand that I may have unintentionally displayed promotional language in my previous edits, and I apologize for any such instances. I have learned from this experience and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's content guidelines. I will ensure that my future contributions align with these principles. *Recent Block: I understand that I was blocked due to my account being associated with other users engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) on the same IP address range. I want to assure the community that I was not involved in any UPE activities. It is possible that actions or edits were made from IP addresses within the same range, which I was not aware of during my absence. I deeply regret any disruption that may have occurred during this time. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I am now back and ready to contribute responsibly and constructively to the platform. *Image in question: I understand that my blocks have been inconsistent, and I apologize for any concerns that my actions may have caused. Regarding the photograph of Kah in question, I did not take a picture of Kah at their residence. Instead, I used my skills in HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and UI/UX to create a digital image of Kah, based on publicly available information and tools such as Figma and remove.bg. My intention was to contribute to Wikipedia with original content, and I was motivated by my passion for research and writing. *Copyright: I maintain that I did not lie about copyright. I am not compensated for my contributions to Wikipedia, and I do this out of a genuine passion for knowledge and information sharing. I would appreciate a clear explanation of how my actions violated copyright rules. I would like the administrators to provide links to any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that you believe I may have violated. This would help me to learn more about Wikipedia's copyright policies and avoid making similar mistakes in the future. I kindly request that you reconsider the block on my account and provide me with an opportunity to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. I believe in the values of Wikipedia and its mission to provide accurate and reliable information to the world. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,Larsody (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, and ordinary administrators cannot unblock. None have done so in the two months since the unblock request was filed, so I am closing it. Also, your unblock request appears to have been written by a chatbot.

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.

— Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 11 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I kindly request that Wikipedia administrator should review my request and accept my unblock request. I have gone through Wikipedia's content guidelines and I have understood the concerns raised in the previous decline reason, and I would like to appeal that my suspension should be reviewed. 1. Promotional Editing: Having gone through the Wikipedia content guidelines, I have seen how I have unintentionally displayed promotional language in my previous edits, and I apologize for any such instances. I have learned from this experience and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's content guidelines. I will ensure that my future contributions align with these principles. 2. Recent Block: I was blocked due to my account being associated with other users engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) on the same IP address range. I want to use this medium to assure the community with all honesty that I was not involved in any UPE activities. 3. Image in question: Regarding the photograph of Kah in question that may be have led to my first blocked, I have said in my previous answer that I did not take a picture of Kah at their residence. Instead, I used my UI/UX skill to create a look alike image of Kah. My intention was to contribute to Wikipedia with original content, and that is what motivated me in the first place to join this community. 4. Copyright: I am not compensated in any form for my little contributions to Wikipedia, and I do this out of a genuine passion for knowledge and information sharing. I kindly request that the blocked action on my account should be reconsidered and provide me with an opportunity to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. The values of Wikipedia and its mission to provide accurate and reliable information to the world motivates me to join this noble community and I promise to abide with these values. Thank you for your time and consideration. Larsody (talk) 4:54 am, 26 February 2024, Monday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I am unable to unblock you at this time. I recommend waiting at least six months before you again request unblocking. (You should not evade your block by editing the English language Wikipedia from a different account or while not logged in during this time. It would reset the six month timer.) It would work in your favor for you to constructively edit a different Wikipedia or Wikimedia project during this time, for at least six months and at least 500 edits. You will then need to concisely and clearly tell how your editing merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias . Before again requesting unblocking, please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Please read and heed any other advice you have received in unblock declines or discussions. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 8:41 am, Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2024 (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.

Concern regarding Draft:Adekunle Adebiyi

Hello, Larsody. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Adekunle Adebiyi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

I'll leave this for a member of the WP:check user team, but I think a WP:SO starting from today is the way to go. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammadou M. O. Kah moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Muhammadou M. O. Kah. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. C F A 💬 23:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]