User talk:Mwangi2017

Welcome!

Hello, Mwangi2017, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

– Fayenatic London 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Warm Welcome

Mwangi2017 (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Hello Mwangi2017. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mwangi2017. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mwangi2017|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GSS, I wish to put it straight I have not been paid nor do I expect any form of compensation for the article "SmartBuyGlasses Optcal Group". I am also not related to the company in any way directly or indirectly. I just happened to have read a document of the company's charity courses and on searching for more information I was disappointed to find out the company is not even on Wikipedia. I thought it would be a good article only to find out there was an earlier article on SmartBuyGlasses that had been declined earlier. It was clear why the earlier draft was declined from its state further more I noted it was done by a new user. I went through the piece and made significant addition including its, philanthropy, controversy and awards received in attempt to improve the notability of the company. The company is worth to be notable according to me being one of the biggest optical e-retail in the would, having received 2 awards on AUSTCHAM, and its contribution to charities. I wish to understand why I appear to have been compensated for the piece and the main reason of having the piece reverted to draft despite having left the necessary template, {{refimprove}}, {{stub}} and {{new user article}} on the talk page. Mwangi2017 (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Prior to your edit on this draft, there was an advert on a freelancing website that was seeking users to do what exactly you did but unfortunately that advert is no longer available. If you believe the subject is notable enough that it can be included in the mainspace, please follow the AfC process. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Okay, I did not come across any advert on the authors page and I don't work with any freelancing website. All in all thanks for your concern and in general I would love your contribution - is there anything else I need to work on on the article? Being a third eye you may be able to point out what I missed. Mwangi2017 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above claims to be somewhat implausible. You account is linked, both through your choice of articles to create and through technical data, to several advertising-only SPAs (including User:KanjaP, a self-identified Upwork freelancer) as well as User:Anjakretfep. Until a good explanation is provided, I am blocking your account on suspicion of undisclosed paid editing and abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

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).

Mwangi2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe I have been unfairly blocked, I don't know who KanjaP the self-identified Upwork freelancer is. For Anjakretfep I found him edit even my userpage and some of the articles I edit I usually find him editing after me. I thought he/she is some sought of an administrator. I seek to have my case rechecked coz I haven't violated any editing privileges I only own this account

Decline reason:

And this other account you know nothing about that has edited your user page just entirely coincidentally happens to be linked to yours by technical evidence. Sorry, we're not that stupid. Huon (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2019 (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.

Hey Huon, So if I head to your user page and maliciously edit it, your account deserve to be blocked irregardless of whether you are innocent or not? Who deserved to be blocked, is it the account that was edited or the account that made the edits? I hope the User:Anjakretfep account is already blocked so he learns to minds his own business. Can you please make me understand the parameters you used to decide whether the user who edited my account did or didn't have ill motives. what justifies that the other account is mine from the edit? Even if the other account is mine, how stupid could I be to use one account to edit the other accounts user page? That would be like calling out loud hey guys come see I have two accounts, this doesn't add up.Mwangi2017 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you head to my user page and edit it, your account and mine won't be linked by technical evidence, unless you also happen to share my internet connection. The world is big enough that the chances that someone editing someone else's user page entirely coincidentally happens to share the technical data are negligible. The obvious conclusion is that the accounts involved here, this one and Anjakretfep (and others), are not independent but are operated either by one person or by a team. This, of course, ties in perfectly with your own contributions and particularly the overlap with Anjakretfep, all of which give the strong impression of undeclared paid editing. Huon (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]