User talk:Claudia wiki01

Welcome!

Hello, Claudia wiki01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

If you want to write more drafts, you may want to check out WP:WIZGO; that page allows you to directly create pages in the "Draft" namespace, the preferred location for drafts. (I would advise against creating new articles directly for now, however; where problematic drafts are declined with feedback on how to improve them, problematic live articles may well be deleted instead.) Huon (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wayne Fromm has been accepted

Wayne Fromm, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mr. Guye (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bilby (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently I'd been willing to assume good faith, and had operated under the assumption that you may have been hired by Uscreen independently of Mamadoutadioukone. However, having just looked at this account's editing history, it is apparent that this is not the case - this is either an alternative account of Mamadoutadioukone being used for paid editing in violation of a block, or you are acting on Mamadoutadioukone's behalf. Accordingly I have blocked this account. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2015 (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).

Claudia wiki01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Bilby, you are right in assuming good faith, I am not Mamadoutadioukone and I was not aware of the history behind this Uscreen editing that I now realize there is. My understanding is that the article was deleted because the previous user violated a block but I have no idea what caused it and I even contacted you because I have no intention to break Wikipedia policies. If there is a problem with this particular article I would rather drop it than lose my account, so I kindly ask you to unblock me. Regarding paid articles I just do them occassionally and made the proper disclosure in my page. Please reconsider this block. Thanks.

Decline reason:

(1) There are far too many coincidences for it to be plausible that you are a new editor, independent of the related accounts that have been blocked. (2) You are clearly here to use Wikipedia for promotion. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and would be ample grounds for an indefinite block even if this account were not a sockpuppet created to evade blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2015 (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.

The problem wasn't Uscreen in particular - at the time I was willing to simply assume that you were a different paid editor. It has since become apparent that this is not the case, as you had also recreated a second article created by Mamadoutadioukone, along with other behavioural evidence. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]