User talk:Ugochimobi

Welcome

Hello, Ugochimobi, 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sweet Sixteen Novel (February 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You will need to provide more independent sources covering this book - last reference does not mention the boot at all?!

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sweet Sixteen Novel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sweet Sixteen Novel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ugochimobi! Having an article 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re administrator

Please do not claim that you are a Wikipedia administrator, which has a specific meaning and process to go through in order to become one. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sweet Sixteen Novel (February 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic 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 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. 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:NBOOK

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sweet Sixteen Novel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sweet Sixteen Novel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sweet Sixteen Novel (February 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese 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. 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:

As mentioned by the previous reviewer. Please see WP:NBOOK and demonstrate the notability accordingly. Unless notability is shown, the draft will not be accepted. Additional references in independent and reliable sources are required. Please make sure to add some sources where this book has been reviewed.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sweet Sixteen Novel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sweet Sixteen Novel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 11:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosula Foundation moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rosula Foundation, 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. Blablubbs|talk 22:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had previously disclosed a COI with "Prime 9ja Online Media" but later removed that claim. Could you explain why? Please also disclose any other conflicts of interest you may have. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 22:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sweet Sixteen Novel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sweet Sixteen Novel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50221328-sweet-sixteen. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Blablubbs|talk 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosula Foundation moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rosula Foundation, 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. CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sweet Sixteen Novel

The article Sweet Sixteen Novel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just barely avoids A7. Significant WP:BEFORE found only one questionably reliable source and one obviously unreliable one, in addition to passing measures. Was speedy-deleted and recreated 30 minutes later.

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. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rosula Foundation (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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. 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.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rosula Foundation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rosula Foundation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Moses Bliss

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Moses Bliss, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello, Ugochimobi. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Deb (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnie Badu moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sonnie Badu, 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. CUPIDICAE💕 17:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Crew moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Xtreme Crew, 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. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Down

I think it is in your best interest to slow down in creating articles until you understand to satisfaction our notability guidelines which you clearly do not have a clue about. At this juncture, your incessant creation of non notable articles is becoming very disruptive. Celestina007 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Dear Celestina007 I'm so sorry about that. Seriously and totally understand every single thing about wiki editing and wiki articles. I'll just pause creating articles at the moment. Thanks dear.Ugochimobi (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xtreme Crew

Ugochimobi, 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!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xtreme Crew

Xtreme Crew, 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!

February 2021

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Ugochimobi, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ugochimobi|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. CUPIDICAE💕 13:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Xtreme Crew, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Ugochimobi, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ugochimobi|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Celestina007 I want to make it known that I wasn't paid for anything or any of my recent edits. I cannot and will never accept payment for edit. Thanks, dear.Ugochimobi (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned twice before, this is your third warning. Celestina007 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Fourth Warning Celestina007 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Xtreme Crew for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xtreme Crew 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Crew 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rox Nation moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rox Nation, 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. Celestina007 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Rox Nation has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rox Nation. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of falsehood, impersonation, & UPE is going on here?

You inserted this in your own talk page by your own self. What sort of blatant lie, falsehood and impersonation is that? I moved this Overt UPE garbage to draftspace & told you here to slow down & you promised to but you clearly lied about that because your next move would be to move the UPE article back to mainspace & proceed to insert this outright falsehood and act as though it was accepted by AFC when it clearly wasn’t. Look You wouldn’t be the first editor to try to game the system & you wouldn’t be the last but the result is always the same; an indef block. Celestina007 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My dearest and sweetest Celestina007 trust me I've offended you personally, like aside from wikipedia. But deeply sorry, I'll just focus on expanding stub articles for now. Please don't be annoyed dear User:Celestina007 Ugochimobi (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest & Sweetest is very much intimate & I don’t appreciate that. This isn’t the first time you have promised to change and do better moving forward but somehow you always seem not to keep your promise. If you aren’t here to build an encyclopedia I’d have no other option than to report you for UPE & using Wikipedia for promotional purposes which isn’t tolerated here. Consider this your last warning. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I promise this time Celestina007 Ugochimobi (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Rox Nation has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rox Nation. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Prime9jaOnline Media (February 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pahunkat 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Wixsites are user-generated content / blogs

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Prime9jaOnline Media and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Prime9jaOnline Media, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pahunkat (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rox Nation (February 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 organizations and companies). 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:

routine press releases are not sufficient to establish any notability

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rox Nation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rox Nation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Prime 9ja Online (February 23)

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 Theroadislong was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

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 ~~~~}}.

Deb (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Sincere Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello! Please I am here to appeal for an unblock, my account was tagged as Promotion/Advertising only account which I was first told about sincerely by @Celestina007 but I appealed here In fact every conversation was done there, I went offline to come back and see a block also because of one @Cjup that recently join the encyclopedia and gave me a barn star. I had no business with the user @Cjup, and see no reason why I should be blocked from Wikipedia after all the conversation that took place here

I am sincerely asking for an Unblock because I personally don't go against any laid down rules or terms set down in any organization or forum, so I see no reason why I should go against the terms of this encyclopedia. Please consider the fact that I had no business with any new user that joined the encyclopedia that anything related to it. I await any assistance in unblocking, Thanks

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry with Cjup. Additionally, pretty clear violations of WP:COI and WP:PAID here. Remember, you don't need to be specifically paid for the act of contributing to Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2021 (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.

I also stated it here that I was never paid for editing Wikipedia articles or creating, I am sincerely pleading a sincere review for an unblock Please. ugochimobi (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You received a sincere review and it reflects that you are the one being insincere through your abuse of multiple accounts. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely @Ponyo u was nerver related to the user, i dont know where he/she came from. Please.ugochimobi (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, @Yamla, if you both would permit me to communicate to him in the “Nigerian English” perhaps they’d have a better grasp of what is being relayed to them, if deemed inappropriate please do revert accordingly.

@Ugochimobi, wetin dem dey yarn be say no be ordinary suspect them dey suspect you, wetin dem dey talk be say, oyibo computer and their ogbonge technology don catch you and their computer don tell them say na you be person wey dey control the @Cjup account and their computer no dey make mistake. So no need to dey tell yeye yeye lie up & down because computer don catch you. So all this lie you dey tell Na for your pocket & dem no go unblock you, so you fit dey yarn dust or dey deny the obvious from now untill thy kingdom come, computer don catch you be say computer don catch you. Them use technical evidence nab you so my brother no bother to waste your time e don be, be say e don be. If you claim say you no understand wetin i just tell you, I fit still explain am for your tribal language which obviously Na Igbo you be & i dey speak and here Igbo wella. Even if tomorrow you go register another account dem go still catch you. Shey I been tell you here say all of us here no be small pikin? You don take your eye see as e dey hot now abi? Ha da agwa mmadu agwa okwa e fugo na anyi gi Na anyi aburo umuazi? Celestina007 (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Passionate Appeal😪😢

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).

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

Request reason:

I sincerely appeal for an unblock, I have been blocked for some weeks now and trust me, all i could do was to go around to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as much as possible. I have gone through Wikipedia since then and trust me it has been seriously though and boring since I'm unable to edit Wikipedia. I know i will do better if i can be given another chance to do so. ugochimobi (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2021 (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.

Appeal for Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I totally understand the fact that I was blocked because of advertising, Please Unblock me as I now know every single policy of Wikipedia like a novel and I am going to continue making useful contributions to Wikipedia instead. Thanks. ugochimobi (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you know every single policy of Wikipedia like a novel I suggest you re-read the classic: Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:34, 5 June 2021 (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.

I see no evidence of recent block evasion. For the reviewing admin, this removes the burden of the checkuser block; you are free to accept or decline the unblock request as you see fit. Deb is the original blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: But It actually shows on the block banner that it was you ugochimobi (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I politely suggest I would decline to unblock you if I was the person reviewing this request. You haven't told us what you plan to write about instead and you haven't told us who you were working for. Other reviewing admins may be more willing to simply lift the block, though, which is why I didn't take action here. Plus, it would be inappropriate for me to decline your request. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Concerning what happened in February, I think it was a misconception of what I am actually, I am actually here to support and build a good encyclopedia, Maybe I was too fast in creating articles for people or organizations (that I am not connected to) and it now seems to be I am working for them.

So who should I say I am working for when I'm actually not working for nobody? I am just one neutral person here to build an encyclopedia.

I sincerely don't know what to say. ugochimobi (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Concerning what happened in February, I think it was a misconception of what I am actually, I am actually here to support and build a good encyclopedia, Maybe I was too fast in creating articles for people or organizations (that I am not connected to) and it now seems to be I am working for them.

So who should I say I am working for when I'm actually not working for nobody? I am just one neutral person here to build an encyclopedia.

I sincerely don't know what to say. ugochimobi (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I totally understand that I was blocked because of promotion which I have stopped
I now understand the Policies and guidelines in editing Wikipedia
I am sure I will always abide with the laid down policies and guidelines
I am also pleading @Deb: (my block admin) to unblock me

Thanks, ugochimobi (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Seems to me you're asking to be rewarded for your dishonesty; you only stopped your bad behavior because it was caught, and you only admitted your lies when they were pointed out to you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:15, 5 June 2021 (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.

ugochimobi (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to disclose your paid status, address why you created a sock account, state your COI with the plethora of non notable persons and entities you created. To be frank, you joined the encyclopedia for the wrong reason and you are yet to be honest about this and until such a time when you choose to be honest unblocking you would just be enabling a/an WP:LBFG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: The reason I created another account was, at that time, I never knew there was something like unblocking since I saw blocked indefinitely, so I thought it was just permanent like not able to be unblocked. That's actually why I decided to create another account.

For my paid disclosure, I am not connected to anybody or subject I created an article for then, I mean maybe I should just say I had no idea how Wikipedia was operated then, that's It.

But If disclosing a COI (which I know I am not having any conflict of interest) would resolve this, then I wouldn't hesitate to disclose. plus I know for sure that I didn't join the encyclopedia for the wrong reason. ugochimobi (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to disclose paid status because of the block, so maybe you could help me place the tag on my userpage. ugochimobi (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if memory serves me right, you created the sock account prior your indef block, infact it was one of the reasons you got indef blocked and not after. To declare that you do not have a COI with the plethora of non notable biographies and entities you created prior your block is blatant deception. I think you remaining indefinitely blocked is only proper as you clearly commenced editing here with a wrong preconceived notion. Celestina007 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: You mean I should remain indefinitely blocked because of COI that I don't even have?

Wow, you and I know that that's very unfair. I have actually seen cases here on WMF that are even worse than my case but were later unblocked.

I have been blocked since the 23rd of February, 2021 and it's the 5th of June. By 23rd June it'll be 4 months. A child that was born on the 23rd of February would be stronger by now.

You know what I am saying, How would I be taught a lesson for 4 months and still fail a test? I'm sure you know that I'm no kid.

Well, I (a commons autoconfirmed user) do not have a say in my unblock case because I cannot unblock myself. It's all up to the Administrators. ugochimobi (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugochimobi, you said I am unable to disclose paid status because of the block, so maybe you could help me place the tag on my userpage. Do I understand correctly that you are now finally admitting that you have been paid by the various people and organizations you've created articles for? —valereee (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Yes I am admitting that btw!. ugochimobi (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with deleting my wmf accounting, since there's no need having an accounting. ugochimobi (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugochimobi: Accounts cannot be deleted for legal reasons. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm ugochimobi (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, account deletion would put us in violation of our own content licence, which requires every edit be attributed both on commit and reuse. There also isn't a way to delete an account in the MediaWiki install Wikipedia uses AFAIK. 21:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Rosula Foundation

Hello, Ugochimobi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rosula Foundation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rox Nation

Hello, Ugochimobi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rox Nation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rox Nation

Hello, Ugochimobi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rox Nation".

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. If 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!} 20:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing my block

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).

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

Request reason:

I have learnt all the ethics of editing Wikipedia and promise to seek advice from advanced editors whenever I am confused with any Policy ugochimobi (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Apart from the inadequacy of this request, there is the stench of WP:GAMING, sock puppetry and not admitting to alt accounts until way to late. The objections to unblocking are noted in the discussion further down. As blocking is done to prevent disruption to this project, cries of "it's not fair" are an indication of a fundamental incompatibility with the collegial environment of this project. The earliest an unblock request should be considered is six months from user's last edit, which, by my reckoning, would be August 18, 2022. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (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.

There's Possible block evasion happening here, with Joseph202. Note also the same style of low-quality spam articles on that other account. However, the technical evidence is only possible, so the checkuser part of this block is lifted. Any admin is free to lift the block if they believe it appropriate to do so, after consulting with the original blocking admin, Deb. If I thought this unblock request was sufficient, I'd have lifted it myself; I definitely don't. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to request that, that my alt (Joseph202) be globalled, because this is my main account. I'm also planning to disclose all the alts that I have, even before now, in a subpage of my userspace. Please Unblock me, I'd really appreciate it. I'm also assuring that I have sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you in anticipation of your benevolent consideration.

Courtesy ping: @Deb and Celestina007: ugochimobi (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK until we catch you in the act shows nothing has really changed here. I strongly suggest the reviewing admin decline your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a whole year? and you still believe I haven't learnt anything at all? I mean, I am not by any chance Evading or Socking, I created that account because I really want to contribute to Wikipedia, I mean, if my intentions are really to disrupt Wikipedia, In won't keep coming here for block appeal. Like I said, I was going to get that account globalled, I am sincerely pleading for an unblock tbh. ugochimobi (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've learned nothing. For example, claiming you are not evading or socking, when you are very, very, very, very, very clearly doing both, shows you are a poor candidate for unblocking. It's not even like the contributions from that account were good, generally; same low-quality spam. Anyway, that's all I have to say here. It's in the hands of the reviewing admin. --Yamla (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Yamla and I stand firmly by Deb’s block, and strongly refuse any lifting of the block in any capacity, if an infinite block could be evoked or an outright ban be proposed i’d support it in a heartbeat. @Ugochimobi, it is very disrespectful and mendacious of you to WP:GAME the system in the egregious manner in which you have done, you clearly stated to have not evaded a block and “have learnt” from your previous errs whereas you were in-fact doing the inverse as you were evading a block. I’m sorry but I don’t believe you deserve editing privileges indefinitely or infinitely (if possible). You are yet to establish or show that you understand your transgressions, it’s damaging effects on our reputation as an encyclopedia nor have learnt anything from these egregious transgressions. Noting also that this account is probably an alternate account(sock) of an older user. Furthermore I believe this appeal to be TROLLING.Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not fair at all :( ugochimobi (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, after several thoughts, drilling and training, I have decided to request the my block be reconsidered. I know I might have cause a lot of harm, violated few policies, etc, but I just realised that I was blocked for valid reasons. Firstly I'd love to appreciate Yamla, Deb, Celestina007, and other sysops who have reviewed my appeals in the past, I just realised that you guys were actually helping me but the fact that I was blindfolded by ignorance of policies, I saw all that you did as threat. Well, it's good thing I know that now :)
After I had thorough look at various Wikipedia policies/guidelines, including but not limited to the Blocking policy (Evasion and enforcement), Sockpuppetry (Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts) (especially the Evasion of blocks/sanctions part which I was actually guilty of), and several others, I saw reasons to request a re-consideration of my block or appeal my block. I can literally say, things became even worse the last time I tried appealing because of my worst ignorant of these best practices or policies, so to say. I learnt that I evaded my block by using User:Joseph202 while the block on my original account was and is still active. In fact, I used several accounts back then in 2021, all of which I don't have any idea the last time I logged in to them, I listed them on my Global Userpage at Meta-Wiki, here and here.
I think it's worth noting that Yamla (the CheckUser) already declared CheckUser block involved here as "lifted" at this diff. Plus, I am also a very active community member in Miraheze, and Global Interwiki Administrator, plus a technical volunteer, I know this doesn't matter here but I just feel It's worth noting. In a nutshell, I was guilty of Block evasion, sockpuppetry, etc and I request that I be considered. Thanks for reading this long text. ugochimobi (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every time you make an unblock request, you say "I understand English Wikipedia's rules". Then you make it obvious that you don't understand them. I was going to say "edit a sister project for six months to prove you can be constructive and follow their policies", but then I noticed that you've already made 200+ edits to Wikidata. When I looked at your edits, it turns out that an administrator asked you stop spamming their wiki. When you can make constructive edits for six months without getting into any trouble on a WMF wiki, we'll consider unblocking you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2022 (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.

Unblock Appeal - User Ugochimobi

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal my block on English Wikipedia as Ugochimobi. I fully understand and acknowledge that I was blocked in 2021 for promoting and advertising, a violation of Wikipedia's policies. At that time, I was new to the system and unaware of the consequences of my actions. I sincerely apologize for my previous behavior and any inconvenience it may have caused.

Since then, I have made several unblock appeals, which were declined due to the perception that I did not fully grasp the reasons for my block. I acknowledge my previous lack of clarity in understanding the nature of my block and how my actions violated Wikipedia's guidelines. However, I assure you that I now fully comprehend the seriousness of the matter and have learned from my past mistakes.

In the most recent unblock appeal, an administrator stated that I could contribute to other Wikimedia projects for a period of six months without any issues. I took this opportunity to contribute to the Nigerian pidgin Wikipedia, where I have been actively involved and have shown my commitment to adhering to the project's guidelines and policies. I have gained valuable experience and honed my skills as an editor during this time.

I am eager to continue contributing to Wikipedia, particularly in the English language. I have a strong passion for improving the platform and ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information provided. I understand the importance of adhering to the policies and guidelines set forth by Wikipedia and am committed to upholding them.

I kindly request that you reconsider my block and grant me the opportunity to contribute once again to the English Wikipedia. I assure you that I have learned from my past mistakes and will adhere strictly to the rules and guidelines set by the community. I am ready to contribute positively and responsibly, particularly in the area of copyediting where I believe I can make a valuable contribution.

I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing my appeal. I apologize for any disruption or inconvenience my previous actions may have caused and assure you of my commitment to being a responsible and productive member of the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. ugochimobi (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Are you using an AI bot to compose your replies? If you are, please don't. In any event, you seem to acknowledge that you haven't established enough of a track record elsewhere that we can consider in unblocking you here. Once you spend much more time editing and establish that edit history, you may request unblock at that time. For now, I decline your request. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 7 June 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.

I see almost no contributions at the Nigerian pidgin Wikipedia. Are you sure this is the example you wish to use to demonstrate six months of constructive edits?!? It will likely count against you, rather than in favour of an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated some articles into Nigerian pidgin and I want to keep doing that. And doing that isn't easy but I will keep translating as I can. ugochimobi (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that my contributions at the Nigerian pidgin Wikipedia may not be extensive, I have been actively involved in editing and have made efforts to contribute constructively within the scope of my abilities. Although the volume of my contributions may not be significant, I have focused on quality rather than quantity. I have taken the time to familiarise myself with the guidelines and policies of the Nigerian pidgin Wikipedia, and I have made careful edits to improve the accuracy and readability of existing articles.

I understand that the expectation for a successful unblock appeal typically involves a substantial track record of constructive contributions. While I acknowledge that my contributions may not yet meet those expectations, I assure you that I am committed to continuing my efforts to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.

In light of your feedback, I am prepared to make a more concerted effort to actively engage with the Nigerian pidgin Wikipedia and contribute to a wider range of articles. I will seek opportunities to collaborate with other editors, participate in discussions, and expand my contributions in terms of both quantity and diversity.

I hope that this additional explanation of my contributions and my renewed commitment to contributing constructively can be taken into consideration during the evaluation of my unblock appeal. I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my earlier communication and assure you of my dedication to learning and growing as a responsible editor.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. ugochimobi (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]