User talk:Kosei23

April 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock Kosei23 and restore 5 Senses K.K.

None of the added links were spam, they are all press articles and interview links.

Thank you, 5 Senses (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Kosei23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Kosei23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Kosei23". The reason given for Kosei23's block is: "Using Wikipedia for spampurposes".

Blocking administrator: ‪Jimfbleak‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

5 Senses (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2023 (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).

Kosei23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2023 (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.

Hello,

I would like you to review the the blocking and subsequent deletion of the page 5 Senses K.K. There were no spam links included (rather links in different languages form international press articles). Kindly indicate which pages you viewed as spam. Many thanks. 5 Senses (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon perhaps I would have been more accurate to just block as blatant spam. Although many of the links are promotional, the article itself is pure spam, lots of promo and spamlinks, no in-line refs and nothing about the company, which appears to have no headquarters, employees, turnover or profits. Apologies for any confusion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jimfbleak. That was a completely inappropriate article. --Yamla (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why ping me? I just did the default "this isn't an autoblock, this is a direct block" decline. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I understand your points although I fail to see which of the newspaper articles included were considered spam links. Perhaps the problem is with the articles written in different languages?

I would like to edit the article to better concur with your expected outlook. Would I be allowed to rewrite it and perhaps submit for revision to avoid a repeat of the sudden block/deletion? 5 Senses (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2023 (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).

Kosei23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kosei23 No spam links included 5 Senses (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The main issue here is that you promoted this artist. If you have a connection to them, please tell is what it is. It appears you gamed the system to get autoconfirmed to be able to directly create the article instead of just creating a draft via WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2023 (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.

Would you please have the patience to review the links included again and kindly point out to me which ones are considered spam? The external links are all newspaper and magazine articles. Because the artist is international and multilingual, the linked articles are written in different languages. Is this the reason why they are flagged as spam? Would an indication of the original language next to the article alleviate this issue? 5 Senses (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please place new posts at the bottom, for proper discussion flow. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to reply. While I appreciate the eclectic feedback from a variety of admins, I am puzzled to see that I have so far been given three different reasons for the block. First reason was spamming (although when asked which links were deemed iffy, no one could point them out). The second reason was promotion. I assume that the website link with further reference works was perhaps deemed promotional (?) Now you introduced the third reason: that of trying to somehow bypass the review stage? And no, I did not try to 'game the system'. If a published draft goes to public domain without being peer-reviewed first then perhaps you should review the system and its subsequent glitches. I was hoping to get the draft reviewed and proofread not autoblocked from the start. We could have saved each other lots of time and effort.

As I mentioned before, I would like to have the chance to redraft the page and have it reviewed. Is that possible?

If these 'talks' lead nowhere and the block stays indefinite without any change in sight, then perhaps I wrongly assumed Wikipedia is the right medium for interesting and reliable information.

Thanks for considering my request. 5 Senses (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]