User talk:404hugo: Difference between revisions

:I am reaching out now to ask for clarity and guidance. If my actions were in error, I would like to understand specifically what I should have done differently and how I can better contribute to Wikipedia in the future without violating its principles.

:I am reaching out now to ask for clarity and guidance. If my actions were in error, I would like to understand specifically what I should have done differently and how I can better contribute to Wikipedia in the future without violating its principles.

:Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope to work collaboratively with the community to resolve this matter constructively. [[User:404hugo|404hugo]] ([[User talk:404hugo#top|talk]]) 05:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope to work collaboratively with the community to resolve this matter constructively. [[User:404hugo|404hugo]] ([[User talk:404hugo#top|talk]]) 05:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::According to GPTzero, there is a 100% chance that this response is AI-generated. Using artificial intelligence to communicate with administrators during your unblock review is unlikely to get you unblocked — especially given that part of your block reasoning deals with continuing to use [[WP:LLM|LLMs]]. We are interested in knowing that ”you”, not ChatGPT, understand Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. We also highly discourage people from using LLMs to edit for various reasons (see [[WP:LLM]]). [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 05:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::According to GPTzero, there is a 100% chance that this response is AI-generated. Using artificial intelligence to communicate with administrators during your unblock review is unlikely to get you unblocked — especially given that part of your block reasoning deals with continuing to use [[WP:LLM|LLMs]]. We are interested in knowing that ”you”, not ChatGPT, understand Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. We also highly discourage people from using LLMs to edit for various reasons (see [[WP:LLM]]). [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 05:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article about yourself, at User:404hugo. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article’s talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:404hugo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia’s goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GPL93 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:404hugo/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia’s goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I’ve moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Matt Young Media, from its old location at User:404hugo/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 20:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 404hugo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Matt Young Media, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization’s website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation’s terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 20:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 404hugo! 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! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 404hugo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Matt Young Media, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:404hugo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DACartman (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for the contribution!

Please consider re-formatting the article to read better. I encourage using tables.

Thank you

Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 01:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your suggestion! I’ll work on reformatting the article to improve readability, especially by incorporating tables. Do you have any specific formatting guidelines or examples from other discography pages that you think would work well here? 404hugo (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime!

Here is The Beatles albums discography page. It shows an example of using a table.

Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 01:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to 123 Management & Co.. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit for review” button at the top of the page OR move the page back.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velella,

I appreciate your time reviewing my article on 123 Management & Co. and moving it to draft space due to notability concerns. I want to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards and would like to better understand which sources may need improvement, removal, or additional verification.

Additionally, I have a photo of an RIAA-certified plaque that explicitly features 123 Management’s name in relation to BHUNNA and the company’s certification. Would this be considered a valid supporting source for notability?

If you could provide a more in-depth explanation of the specific concerns regarding my sources, I’d greatly appreciate it. This will help me refine the article and improve its chances of meeting Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Looking forward to your feedback! 404hugo (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on BHUNNA, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that I am not a paid editor. I have no financial or promotional interest in this article—I am simply contributing in good faith to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of notable topics.

If there are any concerns about my editing, I am happy to discuss them openly. My goal is to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I am willing to work on improving neutrality, sourcing, and formatting as needed.

Please let me know how I can best address any concerns so that we can focus on improving Wikipedia collaboratively. 404hugo (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification on Promotional Concerns Regarding Article

Could you please provide further clarification on why my article was deemed promotional? I dedicated significant time to ensuring that it adhered to a neutral point of view and met Wikipedia’s content guidelines. I would appreciate specific feedback so I can address any concerns appropriately. 404hugo (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undeclared paid editing or severe COI editing with no disclosure, repeatedly creating promotional articles and drafts, wasting extensive time using an LLM to argue with editors and create articles..

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

404hugo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the editor was assuming that i was arguing but i was being professional the whole time trying to better understand the reasoning for my page being deleted i did not get paid for this work as i stated to the editor before “The page I created does not constitute blatant promotion according to CSD G11 because it is written in a neutral tone, with verified facts and reliable third-party sources. There is no exaggerated praise or self-promotion. The article focuses on presenting factual information about the subject’s career and achievements, following Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutral point of view and verifiability. As such, it does not meet the criteria for unambiguous advertising. And that Praxidicae (editor) assumed that i had a personal connection with the entity which is not true as i stated to the editor ” I may have been hired to take the photos, I have no personal connection to the subject. My involvement with the subject is professional, not personal. I wrote the Wikipedia article on my own initiative, outside of any paid work, and I ensured that the content follows Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. I’m fully committed to presenting the information in an unbiased and factual manner, supported by reliable, third-party sources.” but in no way have i breached CSD G11 404hugo (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=the editor was assuming that i was arguing but i was being professional the whole time trying to better understand the reasoning for my page being deleted i did not get paid for this work as i stated to the editor before "The page I created does not constitute blatant promotion according to CSD G11 because it is written in a neutral tone, with verified facts and reliable third-party sources. There is no exaggerated praise or self-promotion. The article focuses on presenting factual information about the subject's career and achievements, following Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral point of view and verifiability. As such, it does not meet the criteria for unambiguous advertising. And that Praxidicae (editor) assumed that i had a personal connection with the entity which is not true as i stated to the editor " I may have been hired to take the photos, I have no personal connection to the subject. My involvement with the subject is professional, not personal. I wrote the Wikipedia article on my own initiative, outside of any paid work, and I ensured that the content follows Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. I’m fully committed to presenting the information in an unbiased and factual manner, supported by reliable, third-party sources." but in no way have i breached CSD G11 [[User:404hugo|404hugo]] ([[User talk:404hugo#top|talk]]) 22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=the editor was assuming that i was arguing but i was being professional the whole time trying to better understand the reasoning for my page being deleted i did not get paid for this work as i stated to the editor before "The page I created does not constitute blatant promotion according to CSD G11 because it is written in a neutral tone, with verified facts and reliable third-party sources. There is no exaggerated praise or self-promotion. The article focuses on presenting factual information about the subject's career and achievements, following Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral point of view and verifiability. As such, it does not meet the criteria for unambiguous advertising. And that Praxidicae (editor) assumed that i had a personal connection with the entity which is not true as i stated to the editor " I may have been hired to take the photos, I have no personal connection to the subject. My involvement with the subject is professional, not personal. I wrote the Wikipedia article on my own initiative, outside of any paid work, and I ensured that the content follows Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. I’m fully committed to presenting the information in an unbiased and factual manner, supported by reliable, third-party sources." but in no way have i breached CSD G11 [[User:404hugo|404hugo]] ([[User talk:404hugo#top|talk]]) 22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=the editor was assuming that i was arguing but i was being professional the whole time trying to better understand the reasoning for my page being deleted i did not get paid for this work as i stated to the editor before "The page I created does not constitute blatant promotion according to CSD G11 because it is written in a neutral tone, with verified facts and reliable third-party sources. There is no exaggerated praise or self-promotion. The article focuses on presenting factual information about the subject's career and achievements, following Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral point of view and verifiability. As such, it does not meet the criteria for unambiguous advertising. And that Praxidicae (editor) assumed that i had a personal connection with the entity which is not true as i stated to the editor " I may have been hired to take the photos, I have no personal connection to the subject. My involvement with the subject is professional, not personal. I wrote the Wikipedia article on my own initiative, outside of any paid work, and I ensured that the content follows Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. I’m fully committed to presenting the information in an unbiased and factual manner, supported by reliable, third-party sources." but in no way have i breached CSD G11 [[User:404hugo|404hugo]] ([[User talk:404hugo#top|talk]]) 22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

404hugo (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a professional relationship with a subject constitutes a conflict of interest and may require payment disclosure, even if you are not paid directly for editing. If you have a financial stake in something, you may need to disclose payment. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under what code of Wikipedia so I may read what it states of the COI 404hugo (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify my intentions and actions regarding my contributions to the page in question. I was paid to photograph an individual associated with the topic but have no personal or ongoing professional relationship with them beyond this one transaction. While I understand that any paid involvement can raise concerns about neutrality or conflict of interest (COI), I want to emphasize that my goal was to provide verifiable and well-sourced information, following Wikipedia’s guidelines as best as I understood them.

That said, I recognize that my approach may not have been fully aligned with Wikipedia’s policies, particularly regarding disclosure or editing processes for COI. If this is the case, I would have appreciated guidance from the community on how to better adhere to these guidelines. I stated in my talk section that I was open to collaboration and help from other editors to ensure the page met Wikipedia’s standards.

Unfortunately, instead of receiving constructive feedback, I felt that my work was removed without consideration, and I was subsequently blocked. This experience has been discouraging, especially as I made every effort to remain professional. I felt as though I was treated unfairly and bullied, rather than supported by the community in improving the article.

I am reaching out now to ask for clarity and guidance. If my actions were in error, I would like to understand specifically what I should have done differently and how I can better contribute to Wikipedia in the future without violating its principles.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope to work collaboratively with the community to resolve this matter constructively. 404hugo (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to GPTzero, there is a 100% chance that this response is AI-generated. Using artificial intelligence to communicate with administrators during your unblock review is unlikely to get you unblocked — especially given that part of your block reasoning deals with continuing to use LLMs. We are interested in knowing that you, not ChatGPT, understand Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. We also highly discourage people from using LLMs to edit for various reasons (see WP:LLM), including that LLMs tend to write in a promotional tone. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]