User talk:Kingintelectual

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NAIHCOTECH11". The reason given for NAIHCOTECH11's block is: " There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit. If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. ".

Blocking administrator: ‪Paul Erik‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Both accounts have contributed spam. They do not appear to be unrelated. As such, I'm going to go block this account directly, too. Yamla (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yamla for the response. I am surprised you said the two accounts are not unrelated. That is not acceptable to me. If you want to block me, please do but it is defaming to link my account with someone I don't know. I signed in with an email that carries my name and details and I think a little background check might have made things clear. Also, how can an account that has just signed up contribute to spam? Thanks Kingintelectual (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Kingintelectual[reply]

Please explain why you would be on the same IP address as a blocked user. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the definitive answer to that question, but what I can say for sure is that I am connecting to the internet through a mobile network carrier and there assign IP. Thanks and I will be grateful if the block is lifted Kingintelectual (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Kingintelectual[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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not connected in any way with the initial account that was blocked. I would appreciate if the block is lifted. I have always admired Wikipedia and have also wanted to join the community of people who contribute to this platform. I must repeat it again that my account is not connected with any other user's account Kingintelectual (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, old request CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:37, 30 June 2020 (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.

I don't think you're a sock puppet of anyone. However, User:Kingintelectual/sandbox is so promotional that it makes me reluctant to unblock you. Please read through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and update your unblock request. At the very least, please give us some idea that you understand why promotional articles are a bad thing for a neutral encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and have fully understood it as suggested by NinjaRobotPirate and why such articles are not good for a platform like this. Also, I have reviewed my sandbox, examine the article there and compared it with other articles, I have seen that the write up is quite partial.If unblocked, I will be neutral in my articles and avoid promotional articles Kingintelectual (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you. Please see Help:Your first article for some advice on writing articles. Also, you can ask for help at the Teahouse, our forum for new users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: do you have any issues with unblocking this editor? Some ISPs stack a lot of editors on each IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to you lifting the block, given this user's promise to avoid promotional editing. --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking me NinjaRobotPirate and also to Yamla for your contribution. As a newbie, I have realized I didn't do enough homework on the modus operandi here before jumping right in. But I promise to not repeat what has happened again. However, I will appreciate any useful suggestions that can help me make better contributions. Thanks. Kingintelectual (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony

The article Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

possible COI + nothing to suggest notability per WP:NACADEMIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Regards, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since unblocking

Since your block was lifted, all of your edits have been inappropriate. I'm deeply disappointed you have continued in this manner and it strongly indicates we should replace the indefinite block. Unless all future edits show a deep understanding of WP:PROMO (as well as WP:COI and WP:NOT), I will replace your block. We simply don't want the promotional material you are contributing, it is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Yamla (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yamla. I must say that since my block was removed, I haven't edited the content of this article because of the issues it caused, which was part of the reasons I was blocked. . I recently visited the teahouse and asked for help on this article, in case someone might be interested in helping me to improve it, and that was the reason I changed the name. I have however, started gathering information, here on Wikipedia, on how to contribute better. I have discovered that writing a biography of a living person was not the best place to start, as a novice

As I promised earlier, I won't be involved in promotional materials or issues that will bring about conflict of interest. And I hope my next edit (not on this particular article) will convince you that I am learning and willing to learn more. ThanksKingintelectual (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there — should your comments above be interpreted as admission that you do have a conflict of interest in what comes specifically to the Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony article? In which case, you should probably go to the article's talk page and openly declare it and explain the nature of your relationship with the article subject.

PS: I've combined your comment (previously in a separate section titled 'Thanks') with the earlier section to which it responds; it's easier to keep track of conversations when they are in the same thread; hope that's okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony 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/Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony 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. Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Association for the Promotion of African Studies (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Insufficient independent sources to establish notability - WP:COMPANY.

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:Association for the Promotion of African Studies 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:Association for the Promotion of African Studies, 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.

Greenman (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kingintelectual! 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! Greenman (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Association for the Promotion of African Studies

Hello, Kingintelectual. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Association for the Promotion of African Studies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]