User talk:Mithulilruc

Welcome!

Hi Mithulilruc! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Mithulilruc. 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Mithulilruc. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mithulilruc|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. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mithulilruc (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Hi, Hammersoft, I am a video gamer and has been playing games for more than 20 years. I joined wikipedia to contribute because I found there are some games missing or need to be introduced clearer here. So what I countributed editing was all about game titles or game contents. I am absolutely not paid by anybody for editing so I consider there is nobody can be diclosed to be my financial stake.[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: UNO Mobile (December 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Zxcvbnm were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

If the game got real reviews, they should be in the reception section. The development section cannot be a list per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there are no reviews worth noting, the game's probably not notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:UNO Mobile and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:UNO Mobile, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of UNO (mobile game) for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article UNO (mobile game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNO (mobile game) 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.

_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- ferret (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Mithulilruc (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Hi, I am a gamer lover and made my contributions to some games articles on wikipedia. And there happened to be games that cannot be found here so I created articles for them. Maybe they are not perfect enough and got rooms for progression. Please do add info on top of the article so that I can prevent doing next time but not delete and ban me. I will pay attention to what to edit next time (try to find notable citations, use better neutral terms, not to be seem as advertising, create articles that is encyclopedia). I can do better[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the reason for your block. Yamla (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Mithulilruc (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)I apologize for not understanding WIKIPEDIA's rules clearly. I once created articles for the games that I like but got declined by admins for the reason of lacking notable citations or other. I searched on the web and did research into how to add more suibatle info for video games on wiki and submitted agian after revising my articles. As a user, I was eager to see my own created articles publish on wiki as soon as possible but the page told me to wait for maybe 3 months.Since I edited many video game related articles that seem not perfect because of no enough notable citations, or even no citations at all and they are published here. I though my articles could possibly be published as these articles. That made me use a new account to create new articles(which had more citations and looked more like a proper game-related wiki articles) and requested a deletion for the old ones. Before I did that, I have no idea it is strictly forbidden here on wiki. What I wanted to do was just to add infomation for the games that I played and liked, but not to edit multiple articles abusively/randomly or edit/delete/add info to wiki articles with no good reasons. I was trying to contribute, however, with a improper method. In the future, I'll be strictly follow wiki rules and do what admins tell me to do when I make contributions, either edits or new articles, for wiki, using only ONE account.[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. A more verbose and complete request is now open. -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 7 January 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.

Please disclose your other accounts as a sign of good faith. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferret, thanks for your reply. My other anounts are Leihuo0001 and Netease Thunderfire UX. The latter one was once blocked for promotional and advertising. The reason I guess was i submitted articles with words and expressions that seemed promotional. Although I rephrased some expressions and kept in mind being as neutral as possible, it did not get through reviews. I think what I did wrong was to not being neutral and not dealing with the issue as actively as possible, but instead used other accounts to edit on wikipedia (wanted to see my articles to be published on wiki as soon as possible). I apologies. Besides, there might be some issue with the user name of it. Although I did not know about it before, it will definitely be kept in my mind. I'll be following wikipedia guides and what admins tell me to do in the future if I could get a unblock: not using multiple accounts, read and learn more about wiki expressions and do not seem promotional, beware of proper user names, edit and contribute to wiki as careful as possible, and all other wiki guides. Thanks.Mithulilruc (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I'm fine with whatever you decide here, but a one account restriction and not circumventing AFC (These 3 accounts have multiple declined drafts on the same topics as well as multiple main space deletions, some having been AFD'd and some Speedy'd) would be good. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing my request, Ferret and Yamla. I'll be using ONLY one account (this one) to contribute/edit more on wiki and if there are articles to be created, I'll be using article wizard and definitely will not try to circumvent AFC for any reason again. Thank you.Mithulilruc (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Hi, Yamla, sorry to ping you. I was wondering if I could get an unblock or not so that I could continue contributing on wikipedia. I'll be strictly following one account restriction and definitely will not circumventing AFC. Thanks for you review.Mithulilruc (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reviewed an unblock request from you and declined it. Someone else will review your current one. There's nothing I can do for you. --Yamla (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. May I ask if there is any way to request for additoinal review from other admins? Thank you.Mithulilruc (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, admin, I apologize for using multiple accounts while contributing for articles that need improvements and creating new articles (with other two account being Leihuo0001 and Netease Thunderfire UX). These days, I have thought through a lot and have thoroughly learnt my lessons. Although I wanted to contribute more on Wikipedia, the ways trying to see my articles get through reviews quickly was definitely a big mistake, and I should not withdraw my AFCs and try to publish articles in main space instead (I meant no harm to Wikipedia community, but just eager to see my articles published). In the meantime, having no clear understanding of rules about advertising and promotional expressions in wiki articles made me use biased words in description, even though I did not mean to promote anything here. Additionally, a proper user name should absolutely be considered while editing and contributing on Wikipedia. I think these might be the mistakes that I made during these months, but one account policy is definitely restrict and any user should not violate it and that might be the main reason of me getting blocked. Apologizes for these again.

I am a game enthusiast and have been playing video games and tabletop games for more than 20 years. My game genre varies from mobile, arcade, pc to console games. And I have been playing MOBA, FPS, RPG, MMO, ACT, Casual, Card and many other types of games for a long time. Also, I can read and write English as well as Japanese, while games of Japan have a really long history so I could do more about them to contribute notable citations and update new information.

If I could get an unblock, I will be following these steps to be a proper contributor on Wikipedia: 1) Use ONLY one account to edit or create new articles. This is a crucial rule of wiki and it will absolutely be kept in my mind in future editing and will not be violated again ever. 2) If there is need to make huge changes to an article, I'll do it via talk page to avoid potential vandalism (I intend to contribute and help articles to be better) and this would prevent me editing articles in the wrong direction although all I want to do is to contribute. Because the changes I am going to make could be reviewed by other editors. 3) If it's obvious mistakes, like grammar or spelling, or apparent outdated info, I'll edit it directly on the page but press the publish button under full consideration. 4) For those new articles I want to create for wiki (some game titles are not seen here), I'll strictly follow the guideline of submitting articles through Article for Creation and make changes to the article with the guidance of admins to make it better and suitable to publish on main space. 5) While editing on Wikipedia, I'll try my best to use proper expressions and not seem to be promotional and advertising. This is also not allowed on wiki so I will keep it in mind to be as neutral as possible. 6) Overall, to read and learn more about Wikipedia guidelines and policies while read and edit articles on Wikipedia would be absolutely good for me to grow in this community. Wikipedia is a great place and I learned a lot about the games and other stuffs that I did not know well before.

Apologize again for not following Wikipedia guidelines properly and wasting your time to track my behaviors and review my request. Thank you. Mithulilruc (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Frankly, I don't believe you. I think you're being paid to promote NetEase. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 14 January 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.

Reviewing admins: As the checkuser who blocked, I give blessing to move forward with this unblock as you see fit. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Thunderfire UX (talk · contribs)? Is that another of your accounts? Why are your accounts named after NetEase and constantly adding promotional content related to that company? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate, User Thunderfire UX is not my account and I have no connection with this account. I am gamer for more than 20 years and have been playing video games of different genres and companies for a long time. That is why I have been contributing to articles related only to games of different developers around the world. I remember I've edit some articles about games from the US, Japan and some other countries. NetEase is a game development company, yet I am not meant to promote it for any business promotional purpose while editing on wikipedia. Several games I've been playing for a period of time happned to be developed by this company and adding neutral infomation (which I thought was neutral but might seem a bit promotional according to wikipedia guidelines) to these games seemed a bit like advertising. I truly apologize for that. As a contributor who is new on wikipedia for less than a year, I definitely need spend much more time to read through various guidelines about multiple accounts restriction, avoiding promitional expressions, using proper ways to submitt articles. All I wanted to do was to let people know more about those video games I played and loved, or games that I could find reliable citations for. And I did not edit articles that I am not familiar with. My purpose was not to harm, yet some of my behaviors brought damgages to wikipedia community. I am sorry about that.I will be strictly following wikipedia guidelines and what admins tell me to do when editing anything on wikipedia using only one account. And trying my best to be neutral and not seem promotional will be kept in my mind at any time.Thank you for reviewing my request. Mithulilruc (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate, I swear if I am paid to edit to peomote products of NetEase, I would have disclosured that. And NetEase is an already existing article and seems not complete (after you mentioned, I checked the page), I would do first thing of adding more promotional descriptions of its products to it directly. Yet that was not what I did. I am not here to promote any companies and I am not paid to make edits. I've thought through my mistakes these days and gave plans and steps to avoid potential vandalism to wikipedia. Please reconsider. Thanks. Mithulilruc (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you fail to explain what Netease Thunderfire UX is, despite admitting the account with that name is yours. These accounts are all making promotional edits to NetEase related articles and adding text along the lines of "NetEase Thunderfire UX is contributing to...", and almost all of the edited articles with issues are listed on ThunderFire UX's webpage. That's pretty damning. The opportunity to come clean seems to have passed. -- ferret (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]