Sungoesup
|
A page you started (Tom on Mars) has been reviewed!
editThanks for creating Tom on Mars, Sungoesup!
Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I've added the article to Wikiproject Films.
To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
May 2017
edit
Hello, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
- Copyvio of other sites such as imdb is not allowed and can result in a block, if you added the information to imdb it is still copyvio as the content is now shared with imdb.. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, just readd content that is not copyvio, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Copyvio of other sites such as imdb is not allowed and can result in a block, if you added the information to imdb it is still copyvio as the content is now shared with imdb.. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You need to follow this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Sungoesup (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yesterday I posted a page of a Mexican actress and was blocked. Posting the page was a mistake on my part and I deeply apologize. I received the code of the person’s page from her directly with a plead to help. I did not get any payment in any form and the intention was just to help an actress be known for what she does. I have seen the persons performances and thought that she is worthy of being part of the encyclopedia. I edited the code with the latest links and posted. Clearly it was wrong. I have never done anything like this before and I promise not to do anything like that again. I am a big believer in the Wikipedia community and want to be a trusted editor. This block made me study the Terms of Use that I promise to respect and follow. Apologies again and thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sungoesup (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You'll need to explain why that particular article is extremely similar to a previous creation by a highly abusive sockpuppeteer who is undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia for monetary gain. (Admins only: see [1]). MER-C 12:44, 22 August 2017 (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.
Sungoesup (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for reviewing my request. As I explained in my first request I have received the code of the article that was already written. I made a huge mistake by editing and posting it again. She said one of her agents was trying to arrange for her to have a basic page. Now I understand that the original article must have been written by a sockpuppeteer. I am very sorry. I understand why you blocked me. I learned the lesson the hard way and feel horrible. I didn’t mean to do any harm. I hope the situation is more clear and hope you can give me a chance. Thank you.Sungoesup (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Too many holes in this story for it to be plausible. Yunshui 雲水 13:16, 8 September 2017 (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 also need to disclose the rest of your paid work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have never been paid or requested any compensation in any form for editing Wikipedia. The Paid tag on all the articles that I ever edited is incorrect and discouraging. As I explained in my request I got a code that was already written and I made a mistake of editing and posting it. I have nothing to do with the author of the original article. I am very sorry for posting somebody else's code, but I never got paid for any of my contributions. That's inaccurate. I made a mistake, accepted and explained it. I want to be a good editor. What can I do? Thank you. Sungoesup (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- So the person who gave you the text I imagine was the previously paid editor than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- It is possible, but I can not speculate. As I mentioned before, I got the text third-hand and made a mistake of posting it. I am entirely a volunteer on Wikipedia. I do not accept money or honorariums for any contributions to Wikipedia. I don't have any financial COI with respect to the subjects I edit. The tags with dollar signs that were added to pages I edited or created are not accurate. Pages of people and cultural assets have never been edited by me for any kind of compensation. I kindly ask the community to check the pages and remove the tags, which look disrespectful to subjects in the eyes of the general public. I greatly appreciate it.Sungoesup (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- So the person who gave you the text I imagine was the previously paid editor than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have never been paid or requested any compensation in any form for editing Wikipedia. The Paid tag on all the articles that I ever edited is incorrect and discouraging. As I explained in my request I got a code that was already written and I made a mistake of editing and posting it. I have nothing to do with the author of the original article. I am very sorry for posting somebody else's code, but I never got paid for any of my contributions. That's inaccurate. I made a mistake, accepted and explained it. I want to be a good editor. What can I do? Thank you. Sungoesup (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- You also need to disclose the rest of your paid work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, all your edits in your five years on Wikipedia are related to Severny in one way or another. Whether or not you have been paid, a conflict of interest is obvious, including meatpuppetry. Given these issues, I would be very uncomfortable with unblocking you and having you return to that topic area. I would be willing to consider an unblock under the condition of a topic ban from topics related to Severny, broadly construed. Would you be interested in that? Huon (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- This topic Maria de Lourdes Severny is being paid for. If all there other edits are related to this topic why would they not have been paid for aswell? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I never got paid for editing Wikipedia. I edit subjects in art, education and culture and have no COI. Yes, I am interested in unblocking with topic ban, if that is the solution. Thanks.Sungoesup (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Who did you get the code from? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Inside Risk: Shadows of Medellin for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inside Risk: Shadows of Medellin 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/Inside Risk: Shadows of Medellin 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. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)