User talk:SUPERGTOR

File source problem with File:Public institution for social security.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Public institution for social security.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Solomartel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solomartel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Solomartel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/SUPERGTOR. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 04:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, got it, will write a shorter version of this and if needed, I will make sure to clarify with additional details once the time comes for it.

I understand your request and I value your feedback. Given the complexity of the issue; making this any shorter than what I wrote or say any shorter than 500 words would simply make the request irrelevant. If I write a shorter message, it will simply lack all the required information for it to be understandable (even if I remove all possible repetitions, it would still be much longer). If I were an administrator reading a shorter version of this request in 200 words, I think I would simply not understand the actual value of the arguments and not accept the request. The context here is very important and needs to be set. I could shorten this request as much as possible but then add further arguments outside of the actual request as an attachment/a response. Would that be a good way of proceeding ? And would those arguments be taken into consideration or would they be considered as outside the request ? (because without those details, the appeal won't really worth anything). Thanks in advance ! SUPERGTOR (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As an attachment to my request, I am adding some of the things said to justify the deletion which are clearly unreasonable:
 * A financial paper from the University of British Columbia was according to the position, paid PR which it clearly was not, it was said that there were advertisements on that website which I checked, there were none.
 * Moreover, I checked the link and it was indeed an official domain of the university of British Columbia, it was not an imitation.
 * That article from the University of British Columbia has indeed been copied to the website of the department of cybersecurity of the University of Harvard which is a free editable wiki that can be edited by anyone (even us) and was thus vandalized. I agreed to removing it once I saw the vandalism, I did not see that right away. Nonetheless, that one reference does not invalidate the other references.
 * The reference of the University of British Columbia was totally valid.
 * Most sources used were major news outlets in India, most of which are being used constantly as references for pages on Wikipedia, I mean most of these companies are part of the top 10 largest journals in India.
 * Also, a few press releases were used to cover this company, none of which referred to [[Solomartel], the company which we were covering. The articles were paid releases from the wealth fund of Saudi Arabia mentioning Solomartel as one of their partners. The Sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest wealth fund can be considered as a reliable source in and of itself.]
 * Other users found references for this page which I did not have the time to check but they appeared valid to me. I would’ve double check had the page not been vandalized and my account blocked..
 * I could continue but I think this already draws a somewhat clear picture.SUPERGTOR (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In order to add all the required information, I will provide the rest of the story line and proof here: To be clear, all of this would’ve been easy to determine but instead of making any verifications, an admin was trumped into believing lies of one user (or a very inexact testimonial to say the least) and then banned me without further verification. The specific user who lied or influenced the investigation in an incorrect direction was a certain Mr Spicy, he presented evidence in a way that was simply incorrect and deceiving to make my account and the accounts of other users banned not based on facts but based on suppositions and I would say almost superstitions. Namely, he used the investigation led about another user named Murgh Krahi, of his alleged sockpuppeteerness as evidence to actually block Murgh Krahi as well as 5-8 other users (which included me and none of which were investigated, something was assumed right away). Either way, what he did was deceitful as he presented smth as evidence (which was not actual evidence) so that the actual investigation did not take place. One of the reasons why this evidence was totally false is that IF IT WAS indeed the case that Mr Murgh Krahi was found guilty of sockpuppetry back in the days on Simple Wiki as Mr Spicy said, then he would have directly been blocked and banned then and he would not be able to edit simple wiki or wikipedia and comment on the page I have created like he did but because Murgh Krahi was able to post his comments on my page, it means that Mr Murgh Krahi was found innocent of the sockpuppetry complaint of many years ago. I do not know who Murgh Krahi is but I want to demonstrate my point using wikipedia guidelines. I really am unsure as to why Mr Spicy acted this way, I do not know if they took a side and lied on purpose or if they had good intentions and really acted in integrity and it so happened that they were not saying the truth, but either way, the set of events surrounding this matter are strange. What is even more strange are the circumstances in which me and the other users have been blocked. The actual issue (which led to the harassment and blocking) arose because I made a page which for some reason a lot of users found triggering in some way (maybe they had a conflict of interest with it) but it was just about a company offering financial services and investments which did not go against Wikipedia policies in any way, and fit notability guidelines. I previously made and edited pages about other financial institutions, as I said earlier, it is one of my passions, just check my edits. In fact, to make sure that I followed all guidelines and in order to do the best job possible, I made use of WP:NOTE and WP:FIND during my development. Everything seemed alright when I made the page and then after about 1 week, all of a sudden the page got raided. The page was raided by a few different people who kept on attacking it, almost like they had personal reasons against this page and what is surprising is that they were all saying the exact same thing. Mainly, Mr Kuru attacked the page while the other users kept on saying the exact same things without adding any further content to what Mr Kuru said as though there were a cult, all saying the exact same thing (again I am only describing what I saw, I think this needs to be looked into). The arguments they gave in favor of the deletion barely made any sense and looked quite black and white. Below this request as a reply, I will provide some examples of the unreasonable things which were said on that page to remove it (I do not want to make this request too long). Also, as this conversation unfolded, some of the other users were harassed on the talk page because they were new users and another user, MrOllie told them that their votes will not be counted which totally breaks the Wikipedia rules ! I really don’t understand how this kind of unfairness can happen on what is meant to be a fair and free project. This really makes me anxious and depressed as I made sure to follow all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, to improve the project and not offend anyone yet I have been blocked without any proper investigation. I really beg anyone for help, plz may someone investigate this matter and conduct and actual investigation. It is easy to prove my innocence.

Additionally, I am adding some of the things said to justify the deletion which are clearly unreasonable: A financial paper from the University of British Columbia was according to the position, paid PR which it clearly was not, it was said that there were advertisements on that website which I checked, there were none. Moreover, I checked the link and it was indeed an official domain of the university of British Columbia, it was not an imitation. That article from the University of British Columbia has indeed been copied to the website of the department of cybersecurity of the University of Harvard which is a free editable wiki that can be edited by anyone (even us) and was thus vandalized. I agreed to removing it once I saw the vandalism, I did not see that right away. Nonetheless, that one reference does not invalidate the other references. The reference of the University of British Columbia was totally valid. Most sources used were major news outlets in India, most of which are being used constantly as references for pages on Wikipedia, I mean most of these companies are part of the top 10 largest journals in India. Also, a few press releases were used to cover this company, none of which referred to SUPERGTOR (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have decided to remove your talk page access as you continue to put up walls of text after requests to be concise. Someone else will review your request; if they see good reason to, they may restore your access without asking me. If your request is declined without restoring access, that will leave you with WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)