User talk:Seuntechnaire

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hello Steve, thanks for sending me a message earlier about the activities happening with my account. My initial account which i used in creating the pending article 'Gabriel Aduda' was Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading which got blocked.

Then i created another account so i can start the article all over again, but i noticed the draft article also appeared in the new account Seuntechnaire, which gave me the opportunity to be able to delete the article.

There has been several events today, the article was tagged for deletion, the user account also got blocked. All of these led to confusion while i'm trying to resolve the issue.

Please i need your assistance Steve in helping me to review the Article so that it is not deleted.

Thank you @Seuntechnaire:: Okay, sorry. I will request to delete the SPI. Steve M (talk)

Thank you Steve. I appreciate your response. I'm trying to do the right thing by not violating any rule further. The article is still flagged for speedy deletion. Please how can i resolve this issue? There is no promotional content on the article.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriel Aduda (January 12)[edit]

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

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

largely unsourced CV

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:Gabriel Aduda 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:Gabriel Aduda, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Seuntechnaire! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriel Aduda (January 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MarioJump83 were:

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.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Gabriel Aduda 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:Gabriel Aduda, 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.

Mario Jump 83! 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all publications and academic works from the article Gabriel AdudaSeuntechnaire (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I believe that publications and academic works are not promotional. However, now I know why you're deleting it, because it is probably a copyright violation. Well, that's good then. Mario Jump 83! 11:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriel Aduda has been accepted[edit]

Gabriel Aduda, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mario Jump 83! 10:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm 331dot. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gabriel Aduda seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I tried as much as possible to be neutral in my view while updating the page. It is unfortunate I wasn't given any opportunity to correct and make changes to the page before it was deleted by you. It took me more than 6hours of trying to contribute to that deleted page. I feel I should have been notified so I can make amendments to the page before it is deleted.

I will like know what exactly I did wrong. While focusing on some of his achievements, I also wrote about the controversy around his personality.

I will appreciate a fair feedback and opportunity to edit the page so as to have a balanced view.

Thank you Seuntechnaire (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me the opportunity to revisit and make amendments to the deleted page so I can re-submit for a review.

thanks Seuntechnaire (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you are associated with Mr. Aduda or the Nigerian government?

Regarding his personal life, if there is no publicly available information, there is no need to write anything at all about it.

You wrote "Gabriel Tanimu Aduda has contributed to the field of public administration through his publications" but you do not say how and do not provide a citation for such a claim by an independent reliable source that determined it.

You speak about his "professional journey"; that is just marketing speak. The article about him should not list every professional qualification he has or every government committee he was involved with- only if they have articles of their own should they be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that I am neither associated with Gabriel Aduda nor the Nigerian government. I am an independent contributor providing information based on available sources. Thank you for pointing out the mistakes in the previous update. I appreciate your feedback, and I would like the opportunity to revisit and correct any errors to ensure a neutral point of view.

Regarding Gabriel Aduda's personal life, if there is no publicly available information, it is indeed unnecessary to include details about it. I apologize for any oversight in that regard.

Regarding the statement about Gabriel Aduda's contributions to the field of public administration, I understand your concern. It is important to have citations from independent reliable sources to support such claims. I apologize for the lack of specific information and references in the previous update.

Furthermore, I acknowledge your perspective on the mention of his "professional journey" and the need for discretion when listing professional qualifications or government committee involvements. It would be more appropriate to include relevant information if there are articles or reliable sources that substantiate their significance.

I appreciate your input, and I will make the necessary revisions to ensure a balanced and well-supported article. Thank you for your understanding. Seuntechnaire (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! - L'Mainerque - (r/talkpage) - 21:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you Seuntechnaire (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

You posted this image in the article about Mr. Aduda and claimed it as your own work. This would mean that you personally took the image, but it appears to be a press image. Please clarify how you obtained this image. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image was lifted from from the internet Seuntechnaire (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You must then remove it immediately as you falsely claimed it as your work. The vast majority of images found on the internet cannot be used on Wikipedia as they lack the appropriate copyright. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it would be removed then Seuntechnaire (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons you said that you took the image. So which is it? Are you telling the truth here, or on Commons? 331dot (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're quickly losing trust with us here. Were you telling the truth here, or on Commons? 331dot (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will block you as a probable undisclosed paid editor if you do not answer the question. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the truth here Seuntechnaire (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you not say the truth on Commons? 331dot (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that was a mistake and it won't ever happen again 105.112.122.8 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was mistake. Apologies Seuntechnaire (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it wasn't a mistake, you made the complete opposite statement there compared to here. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I accept my wrongs Seuntechnaire (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite accepting the fact that i was wrong, apologizing, promising to make amends and never to make such mistake again, you still went ahead to block my account indefinitely as you have threatened to do. Is this fair?

I'm here to learn and improve daily. It feels totally unfair that my account is blocked indefinitely without being given a second chance to correct my wrongs

I have been contributing inconsistently to different pages on Wikipedia for about 2 years, sometimes when we make mistakes the admins usually correct and put us in the right direction. The admins sometimes go as far to assists in fixing some issues. But in your own case it's different Seuntechnaire (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've had chances. I don't believe it was a simple mistake and the image is no longer the only issue here. I don't think you have been honest with us, but what happens to this account will be up to someone else. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give me any chance!

No one is above mistake. Mistakes can be corrected especially once the person accepts their faults and are willing to amend and never repeat such again. From the beginning you have been very hash and brutal. I have had other admins review and leniently handle issues here in the past. I always thank them for assisting and correcting when mistakes are made.

You have done what you had in mind to do.

Enjoy! Seuntechnaire (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for User Account Blocking and Editing Restrictions[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Seuntechnaire (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open unblock at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2023 (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.

Seuntechnaire (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal the blocking of my user account and the associated editing restrictions. I acknowledge the mistake I made in uploading an image and apologize for it. I want to clarify that I was not paid to advertise or promote any page on Wikipedia. I am committed to adhering to policies and guidelines and ensuring such errors do not happen again. Please reconsider the blocking and allow me to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. Thank you }

Decline reason:

The problem is, you've attempted to mislead us. It's hard to tell if you were attempting to mislead us about the source of the image (thus placing the entire project in jeopardy) or are now attempting to mislead us about your relationship with the subject(s) you've been writing about. WP:COI, for example, could easily apply even if you weren't specifically paid for your edits. Yamla (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2023 (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.