User talk:Lemonbisi

August 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Independent Online (South Africa), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Independent Online (South Africa), you may be blocked from editing. Amigao (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Independent Online (South Africa). Amigao (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is bothering you with my information? I have even provided the best source possible, which is Sekunjalo, the owner of IOL. My information does not even delete anything from your information, it builds from it with more information which is critical to the South African society which had Apartheid and black people were never allowed to own media. It is really important that when there is a black owned media especially of this size in the new South Africa that it is stated and celebrated. You seem to want to hide this fact. Why? Lemonbisi (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RSP for a list of reliable sources. Also, the first sentence in a lead does not require any links per WP:LEAD. - Amigao (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Independent Online (South Africa) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zaian (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lemonbisi. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Independent Online (South Africa), 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:Lemonbisi. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Lemonbisi|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. Amigao (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Independent Online (South Africa). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?

Lemonbisi, you arrived in Wikipedia a week ago and have shown a single and very dedicated interest in the page Independent Online (South Africa) and its parent company Sekunjalo Investments, in a way that suggests you are connected with the company and wish to promote it. You have also not involved yourself in talk pages where differences with other editors can be discussed and resolved. Please be aware that Wikipedia has a Conflict of Interest policy under which you are required to declare this sort of conflict of interest. Pages related to Independent Media have been subject to obvious COI editing on many occasions and this is not allowed. If you are here to promote your company or its owners, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Zaian (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Zaian (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above by Amigao, you should you should not edit further until you have responded to the Conflict of Interest suspicion. Zaian (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Independent Online (South Africa)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zaian (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

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 ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 9 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong. I only added that Independent Media is black owned and included a source from the owner Sekunjalo, the stated owner of Independent Media from the very same page under ownership. In fact, the exact line I added from the current first line is...."and it is black owned". The people who created the sentence removed my addition without providing any reason and/or source. Then I undid their reverse and they undid mine. That went on for a while. They said I must not undo their statements. I responded to them by asking what is wrong that I did. I even gave them context that in South Africa we had Apartheid which did not allow black people to own media. Therefore, in the new South Africa we celebrate any achievement by black people, hence we celebrate and state anything that is black owned, it is not illegal to say that. In their response they never said I wrote lies, they threatened to block me if I added that sentence and accused me of advertising and promoting Independent Media, which is a lie. I only added facts which are from the very company that they stated as owning Independent Media, how is that advertising and promotion when I did not add any promotional information? Is stating that a company is black owned seen as promotion these days? So, if I say I am black, that means I am promoting myself? This does not make sense at all. Therefore, I undid their reverse of my inputs until eventually they blocked me. I have a feeling that I am dealing with racists because I don't see any other reason for their actions. Where is the freedom of speech which is part of our constitution? Is it reserved only for certain people or more specifically white people? Then what does that say about Wikipedia? Are black people not allowed to have input on Wikipedia unless that input is approved by white people? What is going on Wikipedia? Lemonbisi (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't know with any certainty what your race is, so unless you have direct evidence of racism, I suggest that you withdraw your accusations of racism. As Wikipedia is a private entity, free speech does not apply, just as it does not apply within the four walls of your residence where you can determine what is said and done there. Free speech is a guarantee that the government will not jail or punish you for your speech. See WP:FREESPEECH. You seem to be attempting to justify your edit warring, not telling us why it is wrong and what you would do differently to resolve the dispute. You'll also need to address any connection you have to this company that could be a conflict of interest and/or a paid editing relationship. There is no reason given in this request to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 10 August 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.

Lemonbisi, it's not the contents of your edit mentioning IOL's black ownership that got you blocked. The reason is that you continued edit warring, i.e. repeatedly adding your preferred version of the text despite several other users raising concerns with the edit. We raised this repeatedly in edit summaries, on your talk page, on the article talk page, and eventually on Wikipedia administrator noticeboards, but you only responded once[1] and paid no attention to the concerns others raised. That is a no-no if you are going to take part in collaborative editing. You also haven't responded to the query about your possible conflict of interest. It's clear that there are COI editors at work on these pages, and if you are one of them (e.g. if you are paid or employed or otherwise related to the company), you need to disclose that. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for other editors to be cautious about "pro-company" edits made by a new single-interest user like yourself. I'm sure it's tempting to think that there are racist forces at work here, but if you take a step back you will see how silly and unconstructive it is to make a claim like that. Zaian (talk) 07:49, 11 August 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).

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

Request reason:

The only reason we are here is solely because I included the words “black owned”. When I first edited your sentence by including “black owned” you said I must not edit your sentence. I did, but later I thought I should then stop editing your sentence and I decided to create my own sentence which included “black owned”. You removed my sentence because you said the grammar is bad. I thought you were correct, and I rectified my sentence by just stating “it is black owned” after your sentence. This was to make sure that I do not edit your sentence and satisfy all your concerns. But when you removed my sentence which is now grammatically correct, I did not touch your sentence and with a source, I realised that the issue all along were the words “black owned”. The only reasonable explanation for removing such words and insisting that they remain removed is racism. If it is not racism, then please explain to me why the words “black owned” cannot be included? It is because no reason or source provided for their removal, hence I had to put those words back every time they were removed. I only received an instruction “thou shall not put the words - black owned”. You couldn’t handle those words, they troubled you so much that you had to investigate me and insinuated that I work for IOL which is not true, go check out their payroll if you want proof. This is just a deflection to find a more palatable reason than racism to block me so that I can’t include the words “black owned”, without confronting the real reason. It’s an old well-known tactic. However, if this is not racism, then prove me wrong by including those words “black owned” yourself. Only then would I withdraw my racism comment, if you don’t then I will take it as an admission on your part that this is racism.

Decline reason:

As I'm sure you expected, I have no choice but to decline your unblock request. WP:GAB explains how to craft an unblock request with a chance of success. Note that this is not based on your race (indeed, I have no idea what your race is), nor is it based on your edits, which I have not reviewed, but rather on your behaviour here in these unblock requests. If you make another unblock request similar to these two, expect to lose access to your talk page. Again, I urge you to read WP:GAB. Yamla (talk) 11:37, 11 August 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.

You seem upset. I've done a lot of editing of South African topics on Wikipedia and been called a few things along the way, but I think racist is a new one. All Wikipedia contributions are public so feel free to check whether mine show a pattern of racist editing, or if I was only racist when objecting to your failure to edit cooperatively. Zaian (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

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. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

-- Yamla (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]