User talk:Lingveno/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

EU Business School

Hi Lingveno, Thanks for your edits in this article. No problems in you including any sections as relevant. You are welcome to make suitable changes as necessary. Any COI related edits can also be removed BUT kindly do not remove any current relevant information that has sourced edits as you did with the accreditations, rankings sections etc.. Since this article has been controversial in the past, please discuss this in the talk page for consensus if you intend to make wholesale changes. Appreciate your cooperation. Audit Guy (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Auditguy, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have fixed the ref on the controversies section, brought the investigation subsection back, and removed the UK accreditations: none of the sources provided in that sections says that the business school has those accreditations, they only mention Spain. Best, --Lingveno (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lingveno, The accreditations from CEEMAN, IACBE and ACBSP, EduQua etc. were sourced and cited and these have been removed. Can you review your edits and reinstate these as they are current and valid information for an encyclopedic entry. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hi Lingveno. I see that you created an alt account for your paid work, User:Lingveno paid. That is fine.

We look for people who edit for pay, to disclose the articles they worked on for pay, and the employer, client, and affiliation, on their userpage.

Would you please add a disclosure to this account's userpage, with that information? It is fine to say, "starting on X date I started to do my paid editing from a dedicated account -- User:Lingveno paid -- and I disclose the paid work done through that account, on that userpage. Please also provide the list on the other page, of what you are working on through that account. Thanks.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of William T. Reid IV for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William T. Reid IV 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/William T. Reid IV until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I am not the main author. --Lingveno (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

But you were the first, and that's what the automatic notification system looks for. The notification system is a backup--we expect most contributors will keep and use Watchlists. (It's been proposed several times to notify all significant editors, but we have not yet agreed on an algorithm.) DGG ( talk ) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Consider this your final warning. Do that again and you'll be blocked indefinitely. Can you also explain what you're up to with File:Brown_sugar_cubes.jpg etc. ? You seem to be WP:PROXYING for Wuestenigel who was blocked on commons earlier this year. SmartSE (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh I've already given you a final warning so... SmartSE (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}.  SmartSE (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear SmartSE, dear administrators. I have understood that paid editing is not for me and I cannot refrain from not adhering the neutral point of view whilst doing paid editing. That is why I have closed my Wikipedia freelancing account on Upwork permanently and I will not do any paid editing anymore. I have been a valuable editor (or at least used to be) for the past 4 years, I have given hundreds of hours to helping translate Meta-Wiki pages, have written a lot of articles across many wikis. Please unblock me so I would continue to benefit the wiki-community as I did before all this paid editing. I would like to continue helping out in enriching the materials on the topics I am good at. Again I am really sorry and I hope you will understand and forgive me. Lingveno (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per comments below. Your abuse of Wikipedia for paid advertising has been both blatant and repeated, despite previous warnings and promises. I suggest the WP:Standard Offer is the best you're likely to get now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

---

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 told me in December to block if you starting making paid edits again. You've recently been proxying for a user who was blocked for extorting people (see Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections) and were adding blatant WP:REFSPAM today. You've been warned many, many times. SmartSE (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

the two most recent edits before the block were this and this. That is blatant and disgusting spamming. How can you write something like your unblock request when you are editing like that? You are either lying or you have no idea even after all this time what even minimally decent editing is and I cannot believe the latter. There is no way you should be unblocked. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Reid Collins & Tsai for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reid Collins & Tsai 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/Reid Collins & Tsai until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

UNblock discussion

I hate to lose a good contributor, but the PAID issue shakes me to the core. I think we will need pretty clear guidelines about what you agree to do and not do. My problem is the sense of loss of trust. I don't know if this is a "wait six months and ask for the WP:standard offer situation" or what. Like I said, I hate to lose a good contributor, but damn.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, I have been also blocked on a German Wikipedia without any warning. Never had issues on German Wikipedia. Just so you know. --Lingveno (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

See de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen#Lingveno. SmartSE (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ach! Du werfst ein Licht, in mein Gesicht! von rammstein.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand and I forgive, which not the same as unblocking.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: I read the above discussions and I understand why he's blocked but is there any chance to give this user another opportunity? Per my interactions with him, he seems a good contributor. Any room for the second chance? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I'm afraid that in my eyes their trustworthyness has been irretrievably damaged. They were already given numerous second chances bur decided to abuse their editing rights. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider unblock w/ TBAN's on any subject they were paid to edit and on adding any links whatsoever to be sure. Any unblock might need to be hashed out at AN just to have enough review and consideration for community imposed restrictions and scrutiny of user. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Until Lingveno actually comes along and makes a meaningful unblock request, why are we even having this conversation? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I would actually be fine with WP:SO, but if there is a consensus that I am to remain blocked, then what else would I do? --Lingveno (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

For starters admit what you were up to and who was paying you to make the edits that you made in March. SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Smartse, to put it short, the author of the photos has paid me in order to upload his photos and put them into articles as he thought they would be beneficial for the content. I thought he wasn't up to anything, but have read the whole thread on Commons after I got blocked. --Lingveno (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Smartse,Dlohcierekim, is there a possibility to ublock me with a condition that i would not edit the main namespace directly and will only go through AfC? I will refrain from any paid editing at all, which i haven't done ever since i have got blocked. --Lingveno (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As I've already said, I've lost all trust in you so I won't be doing anything. Still waiting for an explanation regarding the spam links. SmartSE (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Linveno, I will repeat what I wrote above. Your last two edits before being blocked were this and this. That you did that, that you wrote the unblock request that you did, that you have not addressed that spamming in all of the subsequent posts here... baffling. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Linking

Hi, thanks for your contributions. Please note that we don't normally link years (or dates, or common terms). Tony (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have understood that I have violated the Wikipedia's fundamental principles which has lead to an indefinite block, though two years passed and I am ready to contribute constructively. Lingveno (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Yamla, I have been blocked two years ago for undisclosed paid editing, blatant violation of fundamental Wikipedia principles, proxying, CoI violations, knowingly putting refs as spam, spamming with photos, which which I all admit. I understand this fully. I have once been a good editor (for three years) and I would like to contribute constructively once again. I understand that with my previous action I have corrupt the trust of other editors, and I admit that this was all very wrong. After two years of not being a part of English Wikipedia, I would like to ask for one last chance to become a part of this community once again. --Lingveno (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Yevhen Buket for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yevhen Buket 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/Yevhen Buket 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.

Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of HearMeOut

The article HearMeOut has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the WP:GNG, no evidence of significant coverage and article was created by a paid editor.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)