Jump to content

User talk:Chiragegniol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2025

[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. I will not repeat the mistake Chiragegniol (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Chiragegniol/sandbox

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Chiragegniol/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. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 06:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Chiragegniol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was User:Chiragegniol/sandbox, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stickymatch 06:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: History of Word Egnïol (May 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CoconutOctopus was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
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.
CoconutOctopus talk 11:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Chiragegniol! 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! CoconutOctopus talk 11:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Egnïol Word History (June 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article should begin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. You might try creating a definition for this instead at Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Please only do so if it meets that sister project's criteria for inclusion. These require among others, attestation for the word or phrase, as verified through clear widespread use, or its use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Egniol (June 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fancy Refrigerator 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.
Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Chiragegniol. 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:Chiragegniol. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Chiragegniol|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. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Egniol (June 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils 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:
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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc). Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like an advertorial, which Wikipedia is not. The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage in trade publications for similar businesses (see WP:ROTM). Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess.
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.
Cabrils (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Egniol (June 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bunnypranav were:
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:
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.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Tone is largely promotional.
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.
~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Egniol (June 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by ClaudineChionh were:
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.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
You even left your chatbot prompt in the draft.
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.
ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chiragegniol: removing previous reviewers' notices is deceitful. Do not do this again. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads up, ClaudineChionh, users are permitted to removed notices from their talk pages (though they cannot remove declined block notices while still blocked). However, they should not remove the notice from the draft article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significa liberdade: thanks for the reminder; I did wonder the next day whether my tone might have been a bit too much here. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
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 ~~~~}}.  Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I understand my previous edits did not align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I now realize Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not for promotion. I respectfully request a second chance and will strictly follow all community rules going forward. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiragegniol (talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 June 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.
Administrator use only:

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=I understand my previous edits did not align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I now realize Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not for promotion. I respectfully request a second chance and will strictly follow all community rules going forward. Thank you.<small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chiragegniol|Chiragegniol]] ([[User talk:Chiragegniol#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chiragegniol|contribs]]) 08:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)</small> |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=I understand my previous edits did not align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I now realize Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not for promotion. I respectfully request a second chance and will strictly follow all community rules going forward. Thank you.<small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chiragegniol|Chiragegniol]] ([[User talk:Chiragegniol#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chiragegniol|contribs]]) 08:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)</small> |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=I understand my previous edits did not align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I now realize Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not for promotion. I respectfully request a second chance and will strictly follow all community rules going forward. Thank you.<small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Chiragegniol|Chiragegniol]] ([[User talk:Chiragegniol#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chiragegniol|contribs]]) 08:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)</small> |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chiragegniol&oldid=1294331528"