User talk:Bhcdjjdsh

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laniakea OS (April 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aydoh8 was:

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.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Laniakea OS 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.

Aydoh8^[contribs] 14:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laniakea Technologies (April 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aydoh8 was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

A large amount of the sources are dead links (404), some of them redirect to images and the rest seem pretty unreliable, read like PR pieces (likely SPS), have generic names and are all written by "admin". Overall I can't verify many of the claims. Possible scam?

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Laniakea Technologies 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.

Aydoh8^[contribs] 00:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bhcdjjdsh! 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! Aydoh8[contribs] 00:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laniakea Technologies (April 4)

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 draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Laniakea Technologies 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.

Greenman (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Valentina Ferragni (April 5)

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

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.

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:

See WP:BLP. Statements, starting with the date of birth, need to be sourced or removed.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Valentina Ferragni 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.

Greenman (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laniakea Technologies (April 18)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Laniakea Technologies 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Laniakea Technologies

Draft:Laniakea Technologies, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laniakea Technologies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Laniakea Technologies during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

Hello Bhcdjjdsh. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Bhcdjjdsh. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bhcdjjdsh|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. SK2242 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Bhcdjjdsh, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bhcdjjdsh|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. See my statement about use of Large Language Models in the section below 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This has now been answered in the section below. Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laniakea Technologies, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop fiddling with indents. The format of deletion discussion as come about because of consensus. All you are doing is creating work for others and confusion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laniakea Technologies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. "The repeated rejections may reflect a lack of familiarity with Mexico’s digital ecosystem, as suggested by concerns about reviewer bias. Deletion risks perpetuating systemic bias against topics (WP:BIAS)." is a personal attack against multiple and specific editors. This includes all who have reviewed your work in Draft:Laniakea Technologies and all who have offered the opinion that it should be deleted. While I am aware that this phraseology has been LLM generated you have placed it under your signature and have thus chosen to accept responsibility for this highly offensive statement. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Laniakea Technologies, you may be blocked from editing. This is a strong suggestion not to resubmit again. Disruptive editing is not tolerated. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not resubmit, and I will not resubmit, please, I was working with other articles such as Draft:Valentina Ferragni. Please help Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You were warned at 05:19. You resubmitted at 05:30. I checked the revision history. The truth is always better than the reverse. You created this situation entirely on your own. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Response to Paid Editing Concern

Hello SK2242,

I am not being paid or compensated in any way for my edits about Laniakea. I am a senior writer with a passion for writing about topics I find worthwhile, notable and mystical, and I have no financial stake or conflict of interest in promoting this topic. I have lost access to some older Wikipedia accounts, but I am using this account (Bhcdjjdsh) to continue contributing in good faith. Thank you for raising this concern, and I will ensure my contributions align with Wikipedia's policies. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Lets keep up the good work. Best regards, Yours Truly,

Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bhcdjjdsh Please clarify "I am a senior writer" with precision. Once this is clarified you will have answers the question about paid editing completely and correctly. This statement allows ambiguity in your answer. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am disregarding your response becuase there is a high probability that it was generated by use of a Large Language Model. Thus none of the assurances made in the statement may be believed because they are not your statements. Thus I am about to strike my prior comments and issue a further warning phrased as a question. This is because you have continued to edit without answering the formal question. Please treat Wikipedia with utmost seriousness. It is treating you with the same courtesy. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Contributions in wikipedia shall not be created by an LLM Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe the answer was pretty clear enough, i shall answer again more briefly, saying, explicitly, I am not being paid to make contributions on wikipedia. Best regards, yours truly Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for using your own words. I hope you will do so in the future. There is no clarity, there is no trust, in garbage that is generated by use of a Large Language Model. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding—I haven't used AI-generated content or LLMs in a way that lacks clarity or trust. I aim to provide kind responses. If you have a specific question, I'm here to help! Otherwise, I hope you enjoy a visit to the wiki coffee house. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a discussion. Please do not treat it as such. Wikipedia does not trust anything at all generated by a Large Language Model. Your assertion is interesting but the responses made so far show a cavalier disregard for Wikipedia, simply by your use of a Large Language Model to generate the bulk of them.

There is no misunderstanding. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 04:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks for your comment Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laniakea Technologies (April 21)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Timtrent were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Tendentious resubmission

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 05:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Laniakea Technologies (April 21)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Timtrent was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: It has been rejected multiple times. Please be told

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Laniakea Technologies

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Laniakea Technologies, 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. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The data about wikipedia norms, guidelines, and policies are available in wikipedia.org, your accusation of using AI is not provable. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The data about wikipedia norms, guidelines, and policies are available in wikipedia.org, your accusation of using AI is not provable. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This indefinite block is a blatant abuse of power and a shameful cover-up by admins desperate to hide their corrupt practices. The Miscellany for Deletion process is a rigged circus, and the plan to close it as snow is a disgusting tactic to bury evidence of their bad faith. Robert McClenon wrote in the MfD, “The author has been indefinitely blocked after resubmitting the draft four times,” and then pushed to “close this as snow and dispose of this thing.” This is outrageous—snowing an MfD to silence me and my draft is a cowardly way to dodge accountability for their shoddy practices. The MfD discussion is littered with proof of their bias, like rushing to delete without proper notability review, which belongs in Articles for Creation, not their elitist deletion club.

Snowing my draft is even more absurd. It’s a work in progress in AfC, where iterative improvement is the whole point, not a finished article to be trashed. My drafts had cited content, and any flaws were part of refining them, not a reason to ban me for life. The baseless claim I used AI or an LLM is pure defamation to justify their witch hunt. I’ve checked WP:DISRUPT and WP:G5, and nothing I did comes close to warranting this block. The WP:SNOW push in the MfD is a scam to whitewash their abuse and block new contributors. Unblock me now so I can expose this nonsense and contribute without their corrupt gatekeeping, I'll dismantle this farce and contribute without their rotten system standing in my way, I’ll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

User Jlwoodwa stated that "Google Play is far from being a reliable resource", which is arguably one of the most outrageous claims made on this talk page. Google, a globally trusted tech giant, maintains Google Play as its primary software distribution platform. If that’s considered unreliable, then one must wonder—what is reliable? Your personal blog?which is perhaps one of the most outrageous assertions to date. Considering Google Play is operated by Google—one of the most reputable technology companies in the world—it's difficult to imagine what could possibly be considered more reliable. If a globally recognized and maintained platform like Google Play is deemed untrustworthy, then the standards for reliability must be truly subjective. What would be next? Personal opinions cited as primary sources?

Google Play is not Google Search. It’s a gated platform, not an open index. Apps on Play are vetted, scanned, and subject to strict policies. Search results aren’t. Confusing the two is either lazy or dishonest per WP:RS.

What’s next—are wikipedians claiming Apple is not a reliable resource?

I clearly stated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laniakea Technologies that I had ceased any resubmission attempts after user Timtrent tendentiously rejected the draft four times in less than 24 hours. This is a matter of public record. Following that statement, the logs and trails confirm that I did not attempt to resubmit the article again.

Therefore, the rationale given by SilviaASH for a speedy deletion—“Speedy delete: And block the creator for apparent AI spam”—is factually incorrect. Likewise, Robert McClenon's claim "The author has been indefinitely blocked after resubmitting the draft four more times " is also unfounded. Why would I be blocked from editing Wikipedia for supposedly spamming, when I had explicitly stated I would not resubmit—and indeed did not—for over 12 hours prior to any such accusation? It simply makes no logical sense.

Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A lot of noise here, considering that you also did us the favor a few months ago of creating Draft:Www.laniakea.tv with Master god of the universe. Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:02, 21 April 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.

Response to User

Hello User:jpgordon I am not User:Master god of the universe. This accusation is false.

Other users can be interested about a subject.

I understand moderating is tough, and I’m grateful I don’t have that role. However, banning users for creating articles like Laniakea feels unfair. Please reconsider the ban to encourage collaboration. Probably the Laniakea subject is just being salted.

Please refrain from making unfounded claims. I have faith that if these logs stay and are not snowed, all the participants of this bully practice will be exposed. This abusive and corrupt practice is indeed the biggest scam on the internet.

Be wise

You are fast heading for a passing administrator to remove your talk page access, simply because you are whining and complaining. You may be able to mount a successful appeal if you restrain yourself, but our WP:Checkuser team is unlikely to be incorrect. Please just behave yourself and be dignified in adversity.

TL;DR

Stop complaining 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not complaining and am behaving, I just want the attacks to cease since yesterday for a draft Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The ban for creating DRAFT articles seems overly harsh. The topic may be subject to salting and banning users for good-faith contributions discourages collaboration. Please reconsider to foster a more inclusive environment. I want to write about another subject independent of the MfD draft article that triggered this situation, give me one chance to demonstrate. I was working with Draft:Valentina Ferragni, I will not resubmit it, hopefully someone else resubmits it (did not have an MfD tag) , though I cease to make more new DRAFT articles for a year minimum, I just would like for now for the ban to remove, the Valentina Ferragni article to be published and the 6 Wiki media commons assets uploaded months ago to remain active. This user shall prevail, Peace and love,

Decline reason:

This appeal, such as it is, makes no sense, and more to the point doesn't even begin to persuade me that it would be in the project's best interest for you to be unblocked. And that is before even considering the checkuser-confirmed misuse of multiple accounts. I'm declining your appeal, and would strongly recommend that you read and understand WP:GAB before attempting to appeal again. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 22 April 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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Laniakea Technologies

A tag has been placed on Draft:Laniakea Technologies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Draft created by a disruptive sockpuppet who has now been blocked. The MfD discussion about the page is headed for a WP:SNOW close, and the draft itself is a clear candidate for WP:G11. A desire for it to be deleted swiftly has been prevailingly expressed in the discussion.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Im not a sockpuppet nor an AI nor a black hat, nor am corpspam, nor a paid editor, these are some of the adjectives i have been called by other wikipedians. Bhcdjjdsh (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that the reviewing administrator may not read my entire talk page or full contribution history, and that important context not included in this request may be overlooked. However, I believe that a careful review of the Miscellany for Deletion discussion and the draft involved would show that there was no intent to disrupt. Prior to being blocked, I clearly stated in the MfD that I would not resubmit the draft, and I have fully abided by that statement. I now understand the reasons for the block and acknowledge the concerns raised. I will not repeat the behavior and am committed to making constructive contributions moving forward. With this in mind, I respectfully request that the block be lifted, as it no longer serves to prevent harm or disruption. Lastly, while I acknowledge the characterizations made, I do not believe they are substantiated as factual. Only one account was involved in the MfD discussion and draft, and no solid evidence has been presented to support the sockpuppetry claim.

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Master god of the universe. There's also been a meaningful amount of WP:LOUTSOCK. Yamla (talk) 11:03, 27 April 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.

"Solid evidence"? The solid evidence, which any checkuser operator can see, is that on January 29th, 2025, you created this account on Commons, then logged into English Wikipedia, created Master god of the universe and immediately created Draft:Www.laniakea.tv. You're just wasting our time now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Concern regarding Draft:Valentina Ferragni

Hello, Bhcdjjdsh. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Valentina Ferragni, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 16:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Valentina Ferragni

Hello, Bhcdjjdsh. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Valentina Ferragni".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)