User talk:MLichters

September 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself, at Draft:Marcel Lichters. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Notable people who have edited Wikipedia). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcel Lichters (October 1)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Marcel Lichters instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers.

If the article either is ready for the encyclopedia or appears to be ready for the encyclopedia, the draft will be redirected to the article. However, the article could have been moved into article space instead.

If the article does not appear to be ready for the encyclopedia, the article may be nominated for deletion, and the draft will be kept.

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

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:Marcel Lichters 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MLichters! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MLichters. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marcel Lichters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marcel Lichters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Lichters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

It appears that some of my students have edited an English version of a German Wikipedia article about my person. This might explain the same IP issues, etc. Could you please unblock me?

Decline reason:

This block is based on behavior, not IP addresses(which only checkusers have access to and this isn't a checkuser block). What you describe is called meat puppetry. For starters, you will need to agree to stop editing about yourself and (if you did) asking others to edit about you, and tell what you will edit about instead. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 5 November 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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I’m writing to ask if you would consider lifting the block on my and my students' accounts. I understand that we have been flagged for “sockpuppets,” but I would like to explain our actions to clear up any misunderstanding.

My student (named Oleg) and I each have our own accounts; his account is not a sockpuppet of mine. Initially, I asked him to translate and edit an article on my person from the German Wikipedia page, and he worked on this independently. This German version of the article was published by someone else I am not familiar with. Later, I adjusted the article by myself. Since this was possible without issues on German Wikipedia, I thought publishing a translation on English Wikipedia by one of my students would not cause any issues. When our draft was not approved on English Wikipedia, my student looked into the guidelines and realized there were many rules, especially regarding autobiographies, unlike German Wikipedia. At this point, he learned about autoconfirmed accounts and decided that gaining this status would be easier for us. We saw requirements for biography articles but didn’t pay necessary attention to them since we didn’t anticipate them (we thought it was nothing serious because it is a translation) Following this, my student suggested creating a separate account to independently publish the assigned translation. This is why my initial draft is almost identical to the article that ended up being published under my students's account. Additionally, because we access both accounts from the same IP address provided by our university, we now understand this may have created a false impression of sockpuppeting. I would like to emphasize that we understand that, to some degree, this can be considered collaborative work. However, my student wrote the main body of the article independently. We now realize we should have examined the rules for English Wikipedia more closely, and we apologize for not doing so. We are fully committed to following all guidelines from now on. If possible, I would still like to publish the translated version with any adjustments needed to fit Wikipedia’s standards. Moving forward, I will proceed with greater caution and review the guidelines more thoroughly or ask for help from experienced editors to avoid any mistakes.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Best regards,

Marcel Lichters

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’m writing to ask if you would consider lifting the block on my and my students' accounts. I understand that we have been flagged for “sockpuppets,” but I would like to explain our actions to clear up any misunderstanding.

My student (named Oleg) and I each have our own accounts; his account is not a sockpuppet of mine. Initially, I asked him to translate and edit an article on my person from the German Wikipedia page, and he worked on this independently. This German version of the article was published by someone else I am not familiar with. Later, I adjusted the article by myself. Since this was possible without issues on German Wikipedia, I thought publishing a translation on English Wikipedia by one of my students would not cause any issues.
When our draft was not approved on English Wikipedia, my student looked into the guidelines and realized there were many rules, especially regarding autobiographies, unlike German Wikipedia. At this point, he learned about autoconfirmed accounts and decided that gaining this status would be easier for us. We saw requirements for biography articles but didn’t pay necessary attention to them since we didn’t anticipate them (we thought it was nothing serious because it is a translation)
Following this, my student suggested creating a separate account to independently publish the assigned translation. This is why my initial draft is almost identical to the article that ended up being published under my students's account.
Additionally, because we access both accounts from the same IP address provided by our university, we now understand this may have created a false impression of sockpuppeting.
I would like to emphasize that we understand that, to some degree, this can be considered collaborative work. However, my student wrote the main body of the article independently.
We now realize we should have examined the rules for English Wikipedia more closely, and we apologize for not doing so. We are fully committed to following all guidelines from now on.
If possible, I would still like to publish the translated version with any adjustments needed to fit Wikipedia’s standards. Moving forward, I will proceed with greater caution and review the guidelines more thoroughly or ask for help from experienced editors to avoid any mistakes.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Marcel Lichters |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’m writing to ask if you would consider lifting the block on my and my students' accounts. I understand that we have been flagged for “sockpuppets,” but I would like to explain our actions to clear up any misunderstanding.

My student (named Oleg) and I each have our own accounts; his account is not a sockpuppet of mine. Initially, I asked him to translate and edit an article on my person from the German Wikipedia page, and he worked on this independently. This German version of the article was published by someone else I am not familiar with. Later, I adjusted the article by myself. Since this was possible without issues on German Wikipedia, I thought publishing a translation on English Wikipedia by one of my students would not cause any issues.
When our draft was not approved on English Wikipedia, my student looked into the guidelines and realized there were many rules, especially regarding autobiographies, unlike German Wikipedia. At this point, he learned about autoconfirmed accounts and decided that gaining this status would be easier for us. We saw requirements for biography articles but didn’t pay necessary attention to them since we didn’t anticipate them (we thought it was nothing serious because it is a translation)
Following this, my student suggested creating a separate account to independently publish the assigned translation. This is why my initial draft is almost identical to the article that ended up being published under my students's account.
Additionally, because we access both accounts from the same IP address provided by our university, we now understand this may have created a false impression of sockpuppeting.
I would like to emphasize that we understand that, to some degree, this can be considered collaborative work. However, my student wrote the main body of the article independently.
We now realize we should have examined the rules for English Wikipedia more closely, and we apologize for not doing so. We are fully committed to following all guidelines from now on.
If possible, I would still like to publish the translated version with any adjustments needed to fit Wikipedia’s standards. Moving forward, I will proceed with greater caution and review the guidelines more thoroughly or ask for help from experienced editors to avoid any mistakes.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Marcel Lichters |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’m writing to ask if you would consider lifting the block on my and my students' accounts. I understand that we have been flagged for “sockpuppets,” but I would like to explain our actions to clear up any misunderstanding.

My student (named Oleg) and I each have our own accounts; his account is not a sockpuppet of mine. Initially, I asked him to translate and edit an article on my person from the German Wikipedia page, and he worked on this independently. This German version of the article was published by someone else I am not familiar with. Later, I adjusted the article by myself. Since this was possible without issues on German Wikipedia, I thought publishing a translation on English Wikipedia by one of my students would not cause any issues.
When our draft was not approved on English Wikipedia, my student looked into the guidelines and realized there were many rules, especially regarding autobiographies, unlike German Wikipedia. At this point, he learned about autoconfirmed accounts and decided that gaining this status would be easier for us. We saw requirements for biography articles but didn’t pay necessary attention to them since we didn’t anticipate them (we thought it was nothing serious because it is a translation)
Following this, my student suggested creating a separate account to independently publish the assigned translation. This is why my initial draft is almost identical to the article that ended up being published under my students's account.
Additionally, because we access both accounts from the same IP address provided by our university, we now understand this may have created a false impression of sockpuppeting.
I would like to emphasize that we understand that, to some degree, this can be considered collaborative work. However, my student wrote the main body of the article independently.
We now realize we should have examined the rules for English Wikipedia more closely, and we apologize for not doing so. We are fully committed to following all guidelines from now on.
If possible, I would still like to publish the translated version with any adjustments needed to fit Wikipedia’s standards. Moving forward, I will proceed with greater caution and review the guidelines more thoroughly or ask for help from experienced editors to avoid any mistakes.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Marcel Lichters |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The story you share is believable regarding multiple accounts. However, the article about you was deleted after a deletion discussion, because you currently fail the notability guideline for academics. Therefore, you will not be unblocked to write about yourself (nor will your student be unblocked to write on your behalf). Are there any other contributions you would like to make? Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MLichters:? Please describe edits unrelated to yourself or any other WP:conflict of interest yo would make. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]