User talk:AshleyFredo

May 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}.  MER-C 12:29, 22 May 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I have seen this and read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshleyFredo I am not involved in any of this and I have nothin to advertise here, I am only a researcher who love to contribute. I don't have any idea about those accounts mentioned in that investigation and its really new to me. Even the investigation is not clear and is based on single opinion. CU also didn't verified it yet I am blocked by the accuser which I think is unfair. I read everything before I joined and this is a violation of assume good faith that someone just blocked you like this. I pledge I don't know any of those accounts and I didn't used any single word that is for advertisement. AshleyFredo (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The SPI is very clear, and nothing in this request causes me to question it. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The SPI is not clear, the statement is full of doubt and assumptions and a wild guess. This is very unfair to guess and block people who are helping the community Read this statement again "CU can't really help much. There's likely P2P proxy use, and each account is in a different country (suspiciously so). One of the countries does jump out a bit, as being known as a hub for UPE operations, but I don't have much to add to that." How is this statement VERY CLEAR?? AshleyFredo (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's enough information to justify this block. —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 26 May 2022 (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.

Ruby Love moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ruby Love, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)