User talk:Charlesvet88

Welcome!

Hello, Charlesvet88, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Josh2funny, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Praxidicae (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Josh2funny

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Josh2funny, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Princess Omowunmi Agunbiade has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Princess Omowunmi Agunbiade. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Stanleytux per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stanleytux. 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) 22:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By below the block notice, do I need to open a new topic or just here as a reply?

Looking forward to your reply, thank you. Charlesvet88 (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Log into your main and request for unblocking there. Do not use alternate accounts illegitimately like this either, see WP:SOCKPUPPET. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This actually is not a sock puppet account. I have no access to Stanleytux, maybe we have same Ip range but definitely not the same user, I have absolutely no access to that account. Charlesvet88 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing Block for Suspected SockPuppeting

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).

Charlesvet88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not same user as Stanleytux but I am same user as Caramel2155. I have no direct access to user Stanleytux, therefore I can not appeal block because we may be on same Ip range but are different users. I am a Nigerian editor and would wish to continue working on projects here on Wikipedia. I am fully aware of Wikipedia rules and will abide to the rules and remain committed to using Wikipedia appropriately. Charlesvet88 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So your defense is that you've been associated with the wrong master account? Do you realize that, if true, you would still be violating the same policy you were blocked for? There's no reason to consider a block as you're admitting to block evasion.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 12 September 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.

Re- Appealing 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).

Charlesvet88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have come to understand the reason for my block to be WP:DUCK like an account that was blocked for violating multiple Wikipedia rules, I have also come to understand Wikipedia rules about multiple accounts and will admit to falling prey to different categories of Sock puppetry according to Wikipedia. On the user talk of all associated accounts, I failed to mention the other accounts and I admit to this. But I'd like to reiterate that I am not same user as Stanleytux and and as such, do not have any access to the account or user. I have read Wikipedia guidelines and have come to understand its policies.Charlesvet88 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:SO is probably your only path forward at this point. That requires six months with zero edits, then convincing us you won't repeat your sockpuppetry. At that time, you'll need to list all of your other accounts. Yamla (talk) 21:48, 12 September 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.

can we be a little more lenient please, 6 months is a lot of time, kindly reconsiderCharlesvet88 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Appeal

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).

Charlesvet88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I sincerely would love to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I will continue to abide by the rules and policies, a WP:SO as offered by an administrator here, being my only way out is unbearable. I am appealing that administrators be more lenient to me. Bottom line is that I am appealing the block and pleading guilty to charges of WP:DUCK. I will also like to reiterate that I am not an SP account to Stanleytux, we fall under the same Ip rangeCharlesvet88 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I highly doubt that you will find an adminstrator willing to unblock you before six months. Once trust is destroyed, it is hard to get it back. You can start by showing us that you can abide by guidelines(such as through not socking or evading your block for six months). The six month clock starts with your last edit, so the more time you spend appealing now, the longer you'll have to wait. I would consider your next move carefully. The SO is your only path forward here(as noted above). 331dot (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Hi, it's past 6 months and I have obeyed the sanction and have appealed again[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.

Appealing for Unblock after 6 months SO

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).

Charlesvet88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked 6 months ago for Sockpuppeting Stanleytux, but it happens to be that we are on the same IP. I was offered the Wikipedia SO as the only path to getting a reconsideration to which I have obeyed. Within my 6 months SO, I have taken my time to read and understand more of the Wikipedia guidelines, more so, the reason I was blocked. I am kindly re-appealing for an Unblock so I may also contribute to Wiki projects in part and Wikipedia in general. Thank you in anticipation of a favourable response.Charlesvet88 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as stale. Charlesvet88 can open a new unblock request upon their return. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 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.

Although you insist that you are unrelated to Stanleytux, months go you stated that User:Caramel2155 was your account. What other accounts have you used?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Jayron32's post at WP:AN of May 5 2023:

WP:SO unblock request from Charlesvet88

Charlesvet88

User has, in the past, admitted to socking from User:Caramel2155 and has also claims to have followed the requirements of WP:SO. They deny being Stanleytux; I checked the initial SPI report, and here, and the story checks out: the Checkuser and behavioral evidence link Charlesvet88 to Caramel2115 and to a few other accounts but not Stanleytux. Other than that, I'm just bringing this here to see if WP:SO has been met, and an unblock may be in order per WP:ROPE or not. Pinging @Bbb23: who blocked initially for commentary as well. --Jayron 32 16:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Since May 5th it appears that the AN post didn't receive any responses over there, although the last blocking admin, Bbb23, left a comment above on May 11. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stanleytux and Caramel2155 are both stale, and any past socking by Charlesvet88 is now so old it is beyond the 90-day limit. I'm not sure what else can be done to confirm the absence of recent socking. Charlesvet88 has been editing from a blocked IP range in the country he says he is from (Nigeria) but I imagine there aren't many ranges to choose from over there. The behavioral problems are still outstanding. Charlesvet88 seems to do lots of promotional edits and when this is explained, he has trouble understanding what the problem is. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what connection, if any, you have to Olwo2021 (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: It's been over a month since you made the above comment, and there doesn't seem to be a response. Is it time to close this as stale? Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'm fine with that, but Jayron32 is probably the better person to ask since they placed the request on hold. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and close it and decline it. The user does not appear to be responding to comments here any longer. If they come back, we can address it then. --Jayron 32 16:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]