User talk:Rema36

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oris Aigbokhaevbolo (February 27)

[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 Gheus was:
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:NEWSORGNIGERIA.
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.
Gheus (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oris Aigbokhaevbolo has been accepted

[edit]
Oris Aigbokhaevbolo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Rema36. 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:Rema36. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rema36|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. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 331dot there's no financial stake here. There are just things I do not quite know how to do. Like submitting edits for consideration. For example, I put up another subject page and edited a few and tried to submit but it doesn't seem to have worked. I asked a question to an editor and never got a response. So, no, you are mistaken. I would however be happy if you tell me how to submit edits for consideration. I seem to have done it the first time but since then, I have no idea what happened. Rema36 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oris Aigbokhaevbolo

[edit]

On 11 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oris Aigbokhaevbolo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Oris Aigbokhaevbolo was included on YNaija's 2024 list of influential people in the Nigerian film industry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oris Aigbokhaevbolo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oris Aigbokhaevbolo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. If this block is based off of private evidence, it can additionally be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

  • Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
  • State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
  • Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.
331dot (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue.

Reviewing admins, this is a normal block as it does not involve off-wiki information, the ticket number only collates information available on-wiki; if you don't find it yourself, drop me an email. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2025 (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).

Rema36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not received compensation for any edit I have made on Wikipedia. Perhaps I made a mistake in my response and I certainly made errors in prior edits, none of which was linked to financial compensation. I am merely interested in building up a section of Wikipedia I believe is lacking. Please reinstate my account.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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) 15:06, 8 May 2025 (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.