User talk:Ugochukwu75

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Speedy deletion nomination of Donavon Warren

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 Donavon Warren requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donavon Warren. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SVTCobra 01:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: The page was well referenced but this user who has been attempting to vandalize the page deleted all the availablr references. Can you please review whether he was right for doing so? Thanks!!! Ugochukwu75 (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lie. The "references" were 100% all paid-for promotional websites where one can pay to have a "review" written, or they were blog/forums. I'm about to start going through the rest of your articles to see how those references look. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: he's doing the same on this page. Probably an attempt to get the page deleted by other editors. :man_shrugging: Ugochukwu75 (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two references. In one case, the entire website (bwwmoviesworld.com) does not exist. In the other, the "Worcester Herald" is not a real newspaper - it's a website whose creator gave it a name to try to make it sound like one, and it was active from 2014 to 2018. Appears to be a site where anyone could submit an "article". In other words, it was promotional material, much like every single source you used on Donavon Warren. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Donavon Warren article was notability and the fact that it was previously deleted for not meeting that criteria. In as far as I could tell, nothing had changed in the subject's notability. You had an opportunity to challenge the speedy deletion, but instead you chose to write here. Nevertheless, there are still avenues for you to request undeltion. It's all in the template above. I am not an admin and don't have the powers to do anything at this point. --SVTCobra 23:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (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).

Ugochukwu75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, @Blablubbs: I'm really sorry for having violated WP: PG. Now, I dearly ask for your reconsideration as I vow to always make productive contributions on Wikipedia and never use multiple accounts for WP:ILLEGIT. Please, consider my request. Thanks!!! Ugochukwu75 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Needs to be a much better accounting for your actions. Clearly there is some kind of COI involved here; no ethical person would create a sock to stack votes in AFDs or continue edit wars. We now have no idea to know when you're telling the truth. Kuru (talk) 00:50, 10 November 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'm sorry, there needs to be a longer response here. Please address WP:PAID and state why you've used sockpuppets abusively. Kuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kuru: I already told you that the WP:PAID incident was just with the page Molding Messengers, which I disclosed immediately after I was notified by an editor. Then I'm just sorry about the abusive use of sockpuppets. I believe that no reason as the use of sockpuppets makes sense here and I promise to never do that again. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2021 (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).

Ugochukwu75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello @Kuru:? I understand that it wasn't ethical on my part in anyway to create a sock and use it for an AfD. I vow never to use socks again in any abusive or unethical way again. I am now aware of all the abusive use of socks and will never enter into edit wars with any editor. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised. Please address WP:PAID and state why you did this. You'll also want to explain why we'd want to unblock you, given that you've demonstrated you don't act ethically. Yamla (talk) 10:30, 10 November 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.

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).

Ugochukwu75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, reviewer(s)? I admit that I used multiple accounts in an abusive way. In regards to WP:PAID, that was a one-time incident where a man who paid me to create a Wikipedia page for his publishing company, Molding Messengers. After I became aware of Wikipedia's rules on that, I refunded the man. I never and will never accept payments for editing/creating Wikipedia pages. I only admitted that creating the sock page was an ethical act. I'll never do something like that anymore as I aim to contribute productively to Wikipedia. If you have further questions, please leave that below this, I'll try to respond to it immediately. Thanks, Ugochukwu75 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Bluntly, there's very little reason to trust your assurances when (a) you denied abusing multiple accounts until you were caught and then admitted it; and (b) you denied or "forgot" about undisclosed paid editing until caught and then admitted it. There is zero prospect of an unblock of this account at this time. Per WP:SO, your only option is to go six months with no editing through any account at all and then lodge a further appeal with solid evidence that you understand and will follow Wikipedia policies. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:57, 4 December 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.

Comment: This user is still actively using their other sock User talk:Film Fanatical10069. With this edit, they denied knowing "who that film fanatic" is, which seems implausible, given that both accounts were being heavily used to edit Wheels (2014 film) within hours of each other. That sock account has recently been waging a campaign to be unblocked as well, even after the mountain of behavioral evidence that linked the two accounts. In short, he's not stopping. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Donavon Warren, Joseph Carraro, EnrgTech LTD? You don't have any connection to any of these? --Blablubbs (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Blablubbs:? Thanks for your reply. It was after I watched the Wheels movie and read about it on Wiki that I decided to create a page for Donavon Warren and I contacted the first reviewer, NorthAmerica1000 (I'm currently typing from a mobile device so I can't tag them, but I'm sure that you can find it on the page's delete log) who deleted the initial page before proceeding to create the page. Joseph Carraro also wasn't a paid project. I had to subscribe to a website that kept newspaper archives to reference the page has it has been vandalized before. Then, EnrgTech was also undisclosed paid editing, it was at the same time that I was contacted for Molding Messengers. I'm really sorry that I forgot to mention about EnrgTech previously. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about Jasmit Phulka? On Commons you stated that you were in contact with the subject of the article. (Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding about how copyright works but that's an issue for Commons.) --SVTCobra 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra:, I asked him for the copyright license via Instagram comment. And then he sent it via DM. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there was no paid editing? You just suddenly felt the urge to create a page about a Canadian wrestler? --SVTCobra 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra:, I am Canadian. He's a part of team Canada that were supposed to represent Canada in the Olympics but unfortunately they didn't qualify for the Olympics. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying I believe you are being economical with the truth. I should also add that Blablubbs & Yamla are top notch and their verdicts are stellar & are rarely ever wrong. Furthermore in order for us to help you, you must come clean, absolutely clean and tell the whole truth which may allow for some level of clemency anything less than the whole truth is doing yourself a major disservice, you’d be surprised how much telling the whole truth can help you. Furthermore why are you binge requesting for an unblock? It is disruptive and counter productive, & indicative of one “who is in a rush” your next step as I have stated & as suggested by my senior colleague; Kuru, should be to tell the whole truth, partial truth equates to being deliberately mendacious which I’m sorry to say means you are not the ideal candidate for this collaborative project. Lastly except you comply with what has been stated by others about telling the whole truth pertaining to sock puppetry and paid editing. I’m sorry but I’m going to humbly insist you remain indefinitely blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007:, thanks for this reply. I guess I'll just state how my journey on Wikipedia has been by giving reasons why I made every single edits I've made here on Wikipedia. I hope that helps. If it doesn't, please let me know. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007:, the only reason why I'm 'binge' requesting is because from what I read, a blocked editor should request for an unblock with reasons in response to the reasons stated by the reviewer. If nothing could be done about this and the indef means forever then there's no need to try. I'm already making a draft explaining the reason behind most of my edits. That's the only thing I can do, right? Ugochukwu75 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SVTCobra:, @Celestina007:, @Kuru:, @Yamla: and @Blablubbs:? Back in 2020, I created this account but I never made a single edit till July 2021 when I had to hop on YouTube to learn more about how to become a top editor on Wikipedia. Very few of them were helpful and one of them pointed out to always use the 'in use' template before editing so that other editors would be aware that someone is currently working on the page. Since I am very much of a football (soccer) fan, I searched for latest news on Skysports where I found out that Rinsola Babajide has moved to Brighton. It took a couple of edits to get it right as I was a noob. Then I found a stub about a footballer Chikeluba Ofoedu which I improved with links I could get a hold of. The transfer window was open so I was trying to update verifiable news as soon as I can which I kept on doing in the profile of most footballers (soccer players). Then I uploaded a photo of Jamal Musiala because he no longer played for England but then I became aware of the Wikipedia rules on copyright violation. On 30 July, 2021, I was contacted by a man who offered $100 to create the pages of EnrgTech and Molding Messengers via a post I made on Twitter. He said that he helped startup companies in growing their businesses so a wiki page would probably help. Then after creating the pages, I was warned by Praxidicae (I'm not so sure if I got the name right) to disclose if I'm a paid editor. Then after that incident, I contacted the man to refund the money. Then, I carried on with improving articles of soccer and tennis players in anyway I can. I nominated the page, Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer, born 1981) because it has no references but it was reverted immediately 🤷🏾‍♂️. As a fan of soccer, I follow 433 (a popular profile that post soccer related stuffs daily). They made a documentary about a newly created football club, (Alliance FC) which made me to try creating a page for the football club but I couldn't find much about them and mostly found links about the owner instead who I later found out, has an existing draft. I moved the draft to livespace but I was later notified by Kuru that the links were promotional. On 25 August 2021, I created the account of Binaza for my sister who once told me that she'd like to make edits on Wikipedia also just like me, her name is Sabina thus the username. Then the page of Eder Sarabia was created because I believe that he passes GNG. In September, I tried to create the Donavon Warren page but I had to leave a message on the page of the reviewer who initially deleted the page. Then, for Joseph Carraro page, I tried to improve the stub as I noticed that most of its content has been deleted due to almost no references. I had to get sources from newspaper archives to improve the page. When I requested for a more recent photo of him via email, the man also asked that his date of birth is deleted because of privacy that he was a victim of identity theft. I created the page of Jasmit Phulka' due to the fact that he's a Canadian wrestler who represented team Canada in the 2020 Olympics. Following the advice of an editor, DanCherek, I began editing random drafts to publish, which made me publish the pages of Junk Kouture and Stefan Leipold. This is really the reason behind all the edits I've made on Wikipedia. Sorry that this is coming late because I had to see my therapist to treat my anxiety. Below this post, I'll go through the user contributions of the Binaza profile to explain the reasons behind the edits I made by myself there. Best regards, Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All edits that were made with the Binaza account until 6 November 2021, were made by me. I understand that some of them were used abusively as a sockpuppet and I vow never to that again. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SVTCobra:, @Celestina007:, @Kuru:, @Yamla: and @Blablubbs:. Any updates yet? Ugochukwu75 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have appealed for an unblock, a capable system operator would look into it, asides that there isn’t any update. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007:, thanks for your quick response. Enjoy the rest of the weekend. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me. There's nothing more I can do for you. --Yamla (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, noted sir/ma Yamla. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an Admin and I don't think you get the same Admin for each review ... so you are probably very far down the queue by now, seeing as this is the third request. But what is your rush? Are you in danger of issuing more refunds? As far as your mea culpa goes, you did not address Ferdinando Verderi (who sits in your sandbox) and you were also very cavalier in the way you talked about Joseph Carraro. You admitted to talking to Carraro off-Wiki and making changes to his page at his request. He e-mailed a photo (per your claim at Commons). Does this sound like the innocent novice Wikipedia editor? But beyond that, you all but admitted that you were advertising your services on Twitter. I mean, of course you say they just offered you money. I do not have high hopes for your rehabilitation or your chances of getting unblocked. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: Lol, I'm not in no rush nor in any danger. I only explained edits I made on Wikipedia's main space. I don't think I was in anyway cavalier about how I explained my edits on Joseph Carraro. Feel free to point out whatsoever it is that you don't understand. Also, I never said that you or anyone else is a novice Wikipedia editor. I never advertised on Twitter, I was so excited to create pages on Wikipedia during that time that's why I accepted that offer and I was unaware of Wikipedia's rules at that time. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to say you called someone else a novice, I was saying you don't seem to be as much of a novice as you suggest, despite your tale of learning Wiki markup on YouTube. But more importantly, if you didn't advertise your services, how did people contact you and offer you money to edit pages? I am not asking you to disclose personal information, just the method. --SVTCobra 23:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @SVTCobra:, I'll take that as a compliment. For the record there weren't people, it was just a man. I typed Wikipedia on Twitter search bar then and I saw a man saying that he would pay some money to anyone who would help him create Wikipedia pages for startups. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... a mysterious man ... I have no more questions ... so now you wait for an Admin to find all of this worthy of review. I do not envy that task. --SVTCobra 06:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that in the meantime, yet another sock was blocked on November 12, and then he came back here on the 13th with the original account to ask for an update. I also just uncovered yet another connection between all three accounts. See this post of mine if you want to read all about it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Fred Zepelin:? I found it amazingly funny that you think that account is a sock of mine because I have no idea who they are. With this logic, I'm sure that you'll claim that thousands of editors here are also me. I'm really serious that I have no idea who that person is but believe whatsoever you want to if that makes you sleep well at night. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, kind Wikipedian. I make no claims about your socking. I'm merely reading the results of the investigation by Dennis Brown. He's the one you should be complaining to, not me. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Fred Zepelin: I don't care what his decision about that account is. I can only comment on my talk page Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me; I apologize for not being clearer. He made that decision about your account AND your other account. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My other account? What decision please? Cause I am confused here. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Ugochukwu75 account and the Film Fanatic account. I am amazed at how you seemingly go from expert Wikipedia user to novice that doesn't understand anything depending on the situation. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I don't know who that film fanatic is, please sir. I never claimed to be a Wikipedia expert, I only began using this account this year. Instead, I am amazed at how you are so badass at Wikipedia despite creating your account just a month ago. *The Mourinho quote* Ugochukwu75 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible sock

@Kuru:, @SVTCobra:

Can someone check into Waldemarwall (talk) as another possible sock of this account? Seems likely - an account that creted an article right off the bat, and that article is under deletion discussion (Stefan Leipold). Ugochukwu75 is the main editor, voted "Keep", and the Waldemarwall is the only other one to add a significant amount of work to that article. The "references" are all publicity puff pieces from unreliable sources, much like his others. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a sock, but the reviewers can check that out too. The only account I've created on wiki asides this particular one is Binaza. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to Waldemarwall. Obviously, I cannot rule out WP:MEAT. --Yamla (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: please look more into it. Because I don't have any friend, family or whatsoever who is on Wikipedia. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no tools to "look more into it". Regardless of your assertion, Ugochukwu75, there's no telling if you have had off-wiki contact with other paid editors. You could have met them wherever it was you picked up your paid editing gigs. --SVTCobra 19:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: Same way, I can't think of any other way to say that I have no idea who that person is. I'm really serious about this. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a TON of material from your talk page on October 28 (this edit) that dealt with suspicions of paid editing and sock puppetry, all of which you denied. Now you're partially admitting to paid editing and operating another account - but only in the specific instances that you were definitely caught in. Personally, based on all of that behavior, I don't believe a single word you type at this point. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also - I would like to know who contacted you about creating an article for Lisa Hoggarth. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted 'a TON of material' from my talk page because I found out that it's not against the Wiki rules after seeing you do that on your talk page. That Binaza account was created for my sister who is into the beautifician stuffs. I have no idea if she was contacted to create a wiki page or not. Can you let me complete my draft, please? Ugochukwu75 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned the Binaza account, and yet you knew, almost immediately, that the Binaza account was looking to do an article about Lisa Hoggarth. Amazing. You also said, above, that "The only account I've created on wiki asides this particular one is Binaza", but you didn't mention any siblings that suddenly took an interest in Wikipedia at the exact same time you did, and now you've suddenly sprouted a sister that is "into the beautifician stuffs". Please. Spare us all. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I favourited the page of the user contributions page. So, I was aware that she wanted to create a page on Lisa Hogarth cause she contacted a certain editor. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “complete my draft” you are currently indef blocked & the fact that your TPA hasn’t been revoked is a privilege. I just told you to be truthful & here you are mentioning a “sister” that you didn’t bring up before. Celestina007 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007:, sorry what I mean by a draft here is, "a preliminary version of a piece of writing" and not a draft in Wikipedia. The stuff I'm writing, will better explain what has happened since July that I became active on Wikipedia. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While you are composing your full mea culpa, could you also please touch on your history at Wikipedia? What I mean is in your first two edits, you made use of both {{in use}} and {{cite web}} in a correct manner. This is very unusual for a first-time editor. There's usually a bit of a learning curve. Did you have any accounts prior to this one? --SVTCobra 23:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra:, I actually included it in my 'mea culpa' Lol. I learned that from a YouTube video, though. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007:@SVTCobra: He has just re-awakened an account that was dormant for 4 years - Film Fanatical10069. That account made most of the early edits to the "wheels" movie article. It's obviously the same person. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fred Zeppelin:, you know that it's not cool wrongly accuse people, right? Cause I don't know where all this is coming from. Ugochukwu75 (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accused you of operating multiple accounts. You denied it. Then, after you were blocked, you admitted it. Explain me to me where I "wrongly" accused you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eder Sarabia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eder Sarabia 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/Eder Sarabia (2nd nomination) 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.

Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:EnrgTech LTD

Hello, Ugochukwu75. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:EnrgTech LTD, 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) 19:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:EnrgTech LTD

Hello, Ugochukwu75. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "EnrgTech LTD".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ndi ákíkó irò

Hello, Ugochukwu75. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ndi ákíkó irò, 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) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]