User talk:MagentaIbex70
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, MagentaIbex70, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:MagentaIbex70/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.
Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.
New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
- Article development
- Standard layout
- Lead section
- The perfect article
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DACartman (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
This is for a draft of a deleted wikipage which I am drafting on a sub-page in this case the SandBox and transfer the contents to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Professor_Mark_Whiteley as the feedback from the previous editor has been addressed and would like to appeal for deletion. I am not sure why you did this as this is not an official page of any sort just a draft page. MagentaIbex70 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello MagentaIbex70. You used the {{Help me}}tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the{{Help me}}tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help channel on IRC to get real-time assistance.
Speedy deletion nomination of User:MagentaIbex70/sandbox
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:MagentaIbex70/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, 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. Do not use ChatGPT to contest the deletion, and contest in your own words. DACartman (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Whiteley (surgeon) (January 28)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Whiteley (surgeon) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.
|
Hello, MagentaIbex70!
Having an article draft 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! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Whiteley (surgeon) (January 30)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Whiteley (surgeon) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.
MagentaIbex70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been incorrectly blocked under suspicion of spam related to mafbusiness.com. I have never engaged in spam-related activity. My recent edits were made in good faith, specifically attempting to restore a draft article that experienced Wikipedia editor QC PrimeFac (Qcne) has verified as meeting WP:NACADEMIC. Please review this appeal and restore editing privileges. I am open to further discussion to demonstrate my good faith. Thank you. MagentaIbex70 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
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.
What if anything is your relationship to mafbusiness.com and associated websites and companies? For future reviewers, note that I'm not seeing anything obvious in the WP:CHECKUSER data, but HJ Mitchell is certainly more familiar with various spamfarms operating in the area than I am. Also, I'm not meaning to prevent anyone else from reviewing the above unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Can you comment on this? I can't see anything relevant in the editing history, but obviously not being a CheckUser I'm even more in the dark than Yamla. JBW (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- @JBW they're a UA match and on the same range as what I'm guessing is an SEO firm or similar added to a very narrow interest in a biography which is a hallmark of UPE. I'm quite confident in this block. The block log reason is unique to this set of accounts so you can find the other accounts for comparison of behaviour if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- == Final unblock appeal ==
- @Yamla @HJ Mitchell @JBW
- Thank you for your time and prior reviews. I now wish to respectfully submit a final unblock appeal for any other uninvolved administrator to consider.
- To clarify again:
- - I have **no connection to mafbusiness.com** or any SEO/paid editing firm.
- - My only goal was to create a properly referenced biography for Prof. Mark Whiteley, which was reviewed as meeting WP:NACADEMIC by an experienced editor (Qcne).
- - I understand the concern may stem from technical or behavioral patterns, and I sincerely apologize if my contributions inadvertently triggered suspicion.
- I commit that:
- - I will not edit any topics that may raise conflict of interest flags again unless fully disclosed.
- - I will strictly follow all Wikipedia content, notability, and sourcing policies going forward.
- I hope this statement of good faith and accountability may allow another administrator to reconsider my status. I am happy to work under stricter expectations and only on neutral, policy-compliant edits.
- Best regards,
- MagentaIbex70 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Yamla: @HJ Mitchell: @JBW: – I would be very grateful if one of you could kindly take a moment to review my final unblock appeal above, or let me know if there's another appropriate admin I should contact.
- Thank you for your time. MagentaIbex70 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I believe the WP:CHECKUSER data is stale, meaning I cannot see the technical data that lead to the block. On that basis, I decline to take any action with regard to the unblock request. I am currently too busy to dig into the behaviour that lead to the block. Another admin will review this. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Yamla Thank you for your response. I would greatly appreciate if you can let me know how I would get another admin to review this as I have been blocked from starting discussions on the admin noticeboard. MagentaIbex70 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I believe the WP:CHECKUSER data is stale, meaning I cannot see the technical data that lead to the block. On that basis, I decline to take any action with regard to the unblock request. I am currently too busy to dig into the behaviour that lead to the block. Another admin will review this. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- @JBW they're a UA match and on the same range as what I'm guessing is an SEO firm or similar added to a very narrow interest in a biography which is a hallmark of UPE. I'm quite confident in this block. The block log reason is unique to this set of accounts so you can find the other accounts for comparison of behaviour if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Follow-up Request: Final Independent Review
[edit]Dear administrators,
It has now been over two weeks since my final unblock appeal was posted, and I have not received a response. I understand this case involves CheckUser-related concerns, and I appreciate the time and care needed to handle such matters. However, I would sincerely appreciate if an **uninvolved administrator or CheckUser** could kindly review the appeal.
To briefly reiterate:
- I have **no relationship whatsoever with mafbusiness.com** or any SEO/spam-related activity.
- My contributions were solely focused on creating a properly sourced and neutral draft biography of Prof. Mark Whiteley, which was reviewed positively under WP:NACADEMIC guidelines by an experienced editor.
- I am committed to adhering to all Wikipedia policies, including avoiding any future topics that could raise COI or UPE concerns.
- I am open to editing restrictions, topic bans, or other conditions that would allow me to contribute in a transparent and policy-compliant way.
I respectfully ask for a final review from any admin willing to assess the situation.
@Diannaa: @Blablubbs: @SQL: @Tamzin: @WormThatTurned: — Your time and impartial input would be truly appreciated.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Best regards, MagentaIbex70
Thank you for reviewing my unblock request.
To directly answer your question: I have no relationship or affiliation whatsoever with mafbusiness.com or any associated websites, companies, or spam-related activities.
My Wikipedia activities have been solely focused on restoring and improving the draft biography (Draft:Mark Whiteley (surgeon)). My edits were made transparently and in good faith, supported by QC feedback regarding WP:NACADEMIC.
I genuinely appreciate your attention to this matter and am happy to answer any further questions to resolve any lingering concerns.
Best regards,
MagentaIbex70
MagentaIbex70 (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)}}
- Can you please let me know if you do need anymore details for the unblock? I am happy to help however I can.
- Thanks MagentaIbex70 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
UTRS appeals
[edit]UTRS appeal #102208 was declined, with a message telling you that your unblock request would be dealt with on this page. You have now posted UTRS appeal #102405, which has also been declined, with the same message. JBW (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
MagentaIbex70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I respectfully request a new review of my block. I understand the block was imposed due to suspicion of undisclosed paid editing or spam behavior, particularly in relation to mafbusiness.com. I would like to confirm again that I have **no connection** to mafbusiness.com or any SEO or promotional activity. I now understand that some of my editing behavior—such as a narrow focus on a single draft article—may have unintentionally mirrored patterns associated with undisclosed paid editing. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding this caused. I am committed to editing constructively, neutrally, and in full compliance with Wikipedia’s policies going forward. I am willing to accept **topic bans**, **editing restrictions**, or any conditions deemed necessary by administrators to demonstrate this commitment. If unblocked, I will: - Avoid editing any articles where a conflict of interest could be perceived; - Prioritize diverse, policy-aligned contributions; - Remain transparent and open to feedback. Thank you for considering this appeal.
Decline reason:
I gave you a chance to come clean and you didn't. I can't say more than this due to the privacy and CheckUser policies, but the technical data shows that this answer is not the truth. Katietalk 14:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
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.
What is your relationship to Mark Whiteley, the subject of the now-deleted article you created? Katietalk 14:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the question, @KrakatoaKatie.
- I want to clearly state that I have no affiliation of any kind either personal, professional, or financial with Prof. Mark Whiteley, or any related entity. I have never been paid, asked, or incentivized to write about him or his work.
- My sole motivation was academic interest. As someone who follows developments in vascular surgery, I found Prof. Whiteley’s contributions like TRLOP and the Whiteley Protocol notable and suitable for a neutral, well-referenced biography under Wikipedia’s guidelines.
- I now recognize that my focused editing pattern may have inadvertently resembled promotional behavior. I sincerely regret any confusion that caused and welcome any reasonable oversight to ensure transparency and compliance with policy.
- Best regards,
- MagentaIbex70 MagentaIbex70 (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
MagentaIbex70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear @KrakatoaKatie,
Thank you sincerely for reviewing my unblock appeal and for your ongoing involvement in this process.
I fully respect your decision and appreciate the confidentiality surrounding CheckUser-related matters. I understand that further details cannot be disclosed, and I do not wish to challenge your judgment or the policies protecting this data.
However, I would be grateful for any general guidance you might offer regarding how I might regain editing privileges in the future. I remain fully committed to transparency, policy compliance, and avoiding any content or topic areas that may present potential conflicts.
If possible, I would like to respectfully request that an uninvolved administrator review my situation for a final independent assessment. I’m happy to accept editing restrictions or topic bans to ensure all contributions are policy-aligned and constructive.
I’m grateful for your time and dedication to upholding Wikipedia’s standards, and I remain open to any steps that would demonstrate my good faith.
Best regards, MagentaIbex70
Decline reason:
I'm declining this on procedural grounds, because per GPTZero the appeal is 100% likely AI-generated, and we do not consider AI's appeals – we want to hear from you why you think you should be unblocked. If you choose to appeal again, please write your request yourself. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
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.
MagentaIbex70 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- I will add to my decline that this block, and the subsequent earlier reviews, have been carried out by highly experienced administrators with decades of service and hundreds of thousands of edits under their collective belt. And not only administrators, but ones with advanced permissions and tools, and access to technical evidence, which mere rank-and-file admins like me don't even get to see. Your continued appeals for yet another "uninvolved administrator" (which, BTW, any admin reviewing a block by definition is) to review this, just because you're unhappy with being blocked, is probably starting to hurt rather than help your case. This isn't to say you're not allowed to appeal, that is of course your right, I'm just saying that your next appeal (written by you yourself, please) should have a more substantive basis than merely "can I have another opinion?" --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
MagentaIbex70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear reviewing administrator,
Thank you for taking the time to review my unblock appeal.
I understand the seriousness of concerns around undisclosed paid editing (UPE), and I want to state clearly that I have no connection to mafbusiness.com or to any SEO, PR, or paid editing service.
My sole interest was to create and improve the draft biography of **Prof. Mark Whiteley**, a notable academic in vascular surgery — a field I personally find very interesting. As a new Wikipedia editor, I was excited to work on my first article and hoped to contribute something valuable to the encyclopedia. I focused solely on that draft because I wanted to complete the work thoroughly from start to finish. Looking back, I now realize that my narrow editing pattern may have unintentionally raised red flags.
The article was written with reliable sources and a neutral tone, and I believed it met the criteria under WP:NACADEMIC. It was disheartening to have it rejected under suspicions of UPE, especially when I had hoped it would lead me to make broader contributions in related fields.
To clarify a prior point: @DoubleGrazing, you were correct in identifying that I had used AI as a grammar tool in an earlier message — not to generate the message entirely, but to polish my language. I now understand the importance of writing appeals fully in my own words, and this message has been written without AI assistance.
That said, I want to demonstrate my commitment to editing constructively and within all Wikipedia policies. I am open to any of the following:
- A **topic ban** from biographies or medical topics
- **Editing restrictions** or **mentorship** to help guide my contributions
I respectfully ask for a good-faith opportunity to show I can be a valuable contributor under appropriate oversight. If there's anything more I can clarify, I’d be happy to do so.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Decline reason:
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.