User talk:Wenfeiwu

Welcome!

Hello, Wenfeiwu, 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 Aditya Akella, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Aditya Akella

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 Aditya Akella requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aditya Akella for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aditya Akella 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/Aditya Akella 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. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 29 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because "I was abusing multiple account". The truth is that I and another account holder "User:Fjzzhongyi" are in the same institute (maybe that is the reason why our IPs are the same), and we would like to contribute to a few articles together. Actually, we add complementary contents to articles. I add some discussions for other reviewers in the article talk page, so I was mistakenly considered as sockpuppet. I am sorry that this causes trouble to you, and we would be more careful in the future. Plese unblock our accounts and we would not edit one article with two accounts any more. Wenfeiwu (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining this request for now, but I will give you my reasons, and you may like to make another unblock request, taking into account what I say. At first, I was inclined to unblock you, despite the fact that I have declined a similar unblock request for Fjzzhongyi. Both accounts have collaborated in ways which are regarded as unacceptable, but as new editors you had no reason to know that, and if that were the only problem I would think that a friendly message explaining the issue would be enough, rather than a block. In the case of Fjzzhongyi, there are the other problems of persistent copyright infringement and at times blatantly promotional language, whereas in your case there has been (as far as I have been able to determine) only one very short piece of text copied from elsewhere, and no blatantly promotional language. That is why at first I was willing to consider unblocking you. However, there is one other matter which needs to be dealt with. It looks very much as though you have been writing about people associated with the same institute as yourself. If that is the case, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's guideline to editing where three is a potential conflict of interest. I suggest that you read that guideline, and then post another unblock request, making it clear that you understand the issue, and will take care to edit in line with that guideline. I emphasise that I have not seen any evidence that possible conflict of interest has caused problems so far, but I think it as well if, to avoid future problems, you are aware of the issue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2017 (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.

Nomination of Aditya Akella for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aditya Akella 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/Aditya Akella (2nd nomination) 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. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]