Jump to content

User talk:Abjine

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

Hello, Abjine, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Black Examiner (November 22)

[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 Ingenuity 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:
Crunchbase, Google Maps, and the paper's official website are not reliable sources.
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.
— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Abjine! 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! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Black Examiner (November 26)

[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 KylieTastic 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 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.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Busiinge Aggrey (December 20)

[edit]
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by S0091 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: None of the sources are reliable and/or independent and nothing suggests they can meet the notability guidelines.
S0091 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Abjine. 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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 very 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 extremely 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:Abjine. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Abjine|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. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Draft:The Black Examiner, "The Black Examiner is part of Abjine Media Group PLC, owned by Busiinge Aggrey." You clearly have a personal and financial interest. I suggest moving on because Wikipedia is not a means for promotion, which appears to be your only aim and will likely lead to you being blocked. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Black Examiner (January 26)

[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 Greenman were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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 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.
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.
Greenman (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Busiinge Aggrey

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Abjine. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Busiinge Aggrey, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Busiinge Aggrey

[edit]

Hello, Abjine. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Busiinge Aggrey".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, as you did at [[:Draft:The Black Examiner]]. 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. For that request 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.
UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 24 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Request for Unblock due to Wikimedia Rules Violation Dear Wikipedia Admins, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the unblocking of my Wikipedia account, which was recently blocked due to a violation of Wikimedia rules. I deeply regret my actions and would like to sincerely apologize for any disruption caused to the Wikipedia community. I understand that Wikipedia upholds strict guidelines to ensure the accuracy, neutrality, and integrity of its content. In my enthusiasm to contribute, I made an error in judgment that resulted in the violation of these rules. I now recognize the significance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and the importance of collaborative editing. I assure you that this experience has been a valuable learning lesson for me, and I am committed to fully understanding and complying with Wikipedia's guidelines moving forward. I am dedicated to contributing positively to the platform, providing well-researched and reliable information, and actively engaging in discussions with the Wikipedia community. I would be immensely grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate my dedication to the principles that Wikipedia upholds. I promise to exercise greater caution, diligence, and transparency in my future edits to avoid any further violations. If granted a second chance, I will approach editing with a more careful and responsible mindset, actively seeking guidance from experienced editors when in doubt, and using reliable sources to support my contributions. Once again, I offer my sincere apologies for my previous actions, and I humbly request the unblocking of my account so that I can continue to contribute positively to Wikipedia. I am eager to make amends and regain your trust. Thank you for considering my appeal. I look forward to the possibility of being reinstated as an active Wikipedia editor and contributing constructively to this wonderful community. Yours sincerely, abjine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abjine Dear Wikipedia Admins, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the unblocking of my Wikipedia account, which was recently blocked due to a violation of Wikimedia rules. I deeply regret my actions and would like to sincerely apologize for any disruption caused to the Wikipedia community. I understand that Wikipedia upholds strict guidelines to ensure the accuracy, neutrality, and integrity of its content. In my enthusiasm to contribute, I made an error in judgment that resulted in the violation of these rules. I now recognize the significance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and the importance of collaborative editing. I assure you that this experience has been a valuable learning lesson for me, and I am committed to fully understanding and complying with Wikipedia's guidelines moving forward. I am dedicated to contributing positively to the platform, providing well-researched and reliable information, and actively engaging in discussions with the Wikipedia community. I would be immensely grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate my dedication to the principles that Wikipedia upholds. I promise to exercise greater caution, diligence, and transparency in my future edits to avoid any further violations. If granted a second chance, I will approach editing with a more careful and responsible mindset, actively seeking guidance from experienced editors when in doubt, and using reliable sources to support my contributions. Once again, I offer my sincere apologies for my previous actions, and I humbly request the unblocking of my account so that I can continue to contribute positively to Wikipedia. I am eager to make amends and regain your trust. Thank you for considering my appeal. I look forward to the possibility of being reinstated as an active Wikipedia editor and contributing constructively to this wonderful community. Yours sincerely, [Your Wikipedia Username][Your Wikipedia User Talk Page Link] Abjine (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's perhaps the worst chatbot appeal I've seen yet. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:08, 25 July 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.

Proposed deletion of The Black Examiner

[edit]
Notice

The article The Black Examiner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (References are two links to the newspaper's own web site, one to a mere list of titles, and two dead links, of which one was evidently a blog post, and the other apparently a list entry.)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JBW (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abjine. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The WordsmithTalk to me 01:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abjine&oldid=1212470483"