User talk:MasterOliverTwist

Resolved by disclosure and conditional unblock ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello MasterOliverTwist. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Ada Ehi, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:MasterOliverTwist. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MasterOliverTwist|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Ehi Page Edit

Although I have initially responded on your talk page before I realized I could also respond to you message here and as i mentioned earlier, Sorry it took me long to respond as I initially didn't know how to do so and coupled to other factors relating to the covid - 19 pandemics. In regards to receiving compensations or any form of payment directly or indirectly for any edit on the Ada Ehi wiki profile or any of my edit at all on wiki in general. I have in no way received any payment from anyone for any of my edits on Wikipedia. I only made those edits as it linked back her works to her digital space so anyone who comes to read about her can easily get to find her beautiful works of art in terms of her songs just as a few has been done initially by other editors. Thanks and best regard MasterOliverTwist (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Limoblaze

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 Limoblaze, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://gmedia.home.blog/limoblaze/. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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. Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hello, dear noble administrators of Wikipedia due to my initial ignorance as a starter in the Wikipedia community of how to go about doing some certain things such as proper editing, article creation practice, and likewise use of some wiki template such as the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation policy I got a block due to my inexperienced editing techniques and some warning which I didn't know how to make amends to.

I sorted out to read more on the policies governing the creation and edition of the article on the Wikipedia community, while I progressed on starting a personal Wikipedia experimental project which I did in my draft to familiarise my self with how things work in the Wikipedia community although this got me a block by one of the administrators on the Wikipedia community and while on the block, have used this medium to reflect on my mistakes and tried to correct that which have been booked for by the admin who served me the block.

I have likewise gone ahead to read up on all the policies on the creation of authentic and notable articles, as well as good editorial practices which also includes to give suggestion when necessary and sorting guidance when unclear.

Am deeply remorseful about my ignorant deeds and have been sorting to know more, so that such wouldn't repeat itself any longer. With all humility, I plea to be unblocked and vow to do things properly henceforth and refrain from areas or articles in which I might have a conflict of interest, as honestly ever since the block, I have been unable to seek help on talk pages of notable admins on discussions that are of great value and interest to me. I sincerely mean only good and no harm towards the Wikipedia community.

Addressing the Ada Ehi I promise to do the necessary thing and because I had a personal relationship with that entity was why I refrained from doing any edit on the page. I would rather propose an edit to an admin with the necessary reference so it can be double-checked. I have likewise made my disclosure in regards to paid editing disclosure requirements.

I wasn't tending to promote any of these entities and Draft:Limoblaze is my personal Wiki project to start off as a good Wikipedian. In addressing how I intend to edit such topics in the future, I will always do my due diligence to gather all the necessary facts from the appropriate and cited sources without being bias and asking other editors do a review of drafts if it is about an article creation giving it the proper citation and following the Wikipedia guidelines for article creation and editing or rather I would propose an edit to be made by a notable editor on the article talk page so that the Wikipedia community remains a happy place for everyone to get valuable information.

Am deeply sorry, as over the period since the block, have been going through all the policies I can lay my hands on Wikipedia community conduct and, I promise to be law-abiding and seek counsel if I don't seem to know what to do or how to at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Please kindly help review my unblock appeal and if there is anything needed that I do that I haven't kindly point my attention towards it. I really don't have much of an experience with Wikipedia but am all willing and happy to learn as I acknowledge my mistakes and make amends for them thanks. @Justlettersandnumbers: @ToBeFree: MasterOliverTwist (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you very much. Per our agreement below, you are unblocked under the following binding unblock conditions:

Not creating nor submitting new drafts until you have made at least 500 edits to already-existing Wikipedia articles (i.e. the main namespace), without attempting to game the system by making pointlessly small/high-frequent edits. This may take months or years, and it is meant to ensure that the necessary experience and caution are gained in practice rather than theory.
Not creating new articles in the main namespace, until this condition is successfully appealed at WP:AN.
Not creating new articles nor drafts about living persons, until this condition is successfully appealed at WP:AN.
Not editing the article Ada Ehi directly, until this condition is successfully appealed at WP:AN.

The only exceptions are described at WP:BANEX.

Additionally:

As a general recommendation, please avoid directly messaging other editors about content disputes. Instead, please create a discussion on the talk page of the article, then feel free to invite the others to the discussion with a short, neutral notification.
As a general recommendation, please gain experience in non-biographical articles/discussions before jumping into the dangerous area of biographies of living persons.

These recommendations are, well, recommendations. You do not need to agree to them, and you are not bound to them. There is no policy that forbids you from messaging other editors instead of centralizing a discussion, and there is no policy that forces you to avoid biographies entirely. You are especially welcome to carefully make first steps in this area by removing unsourced, questionable statements about living people in non-biographical articles, whenever you stumble upon them. For example, this could be removing clearly irrelevant entries lacking a citation from lists of people in school articles. A common edit summary for such a case could be "removing unsourced (irrelevant?) entry; please provide a citation".

Ideas for constructive contributions can be found at the community portal and the Task Center. Please be careful not to dive in too quickly; take your time to slowly get accustomed to the community and its practices. Always feel free to ask if something is unclear; never feel personally attacked or mistreated when an edit is undone by someone else. When in doubt, rather accept a seemingly incorrect revert than starting a huge discussion about it. Disagreements will happen, but when they happen during a learning phase, they're often a sign of currently learning something new and unexpected. And that's a good sign then.

Best regards and welcome back,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MasterOliverTwist, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Freenation on behalf of Ada Ehi for their contributions to Wikipedia.

In respect to this disclosure, it is not directly because I edit her page created on Wikipedia, but it is because I work for her management as a digital entity and by so doing the edit I tried making on her article are simply for clean up purposes and to try as much as possible not to likewise allow people vandalize her Wikipedia page with false information and or citations.

Am sorry if my action seems as though I was promoting or advertising as this is not the case and I promise to rather suggest an edit to the page next time to an editor on the article talk page if I see any necessary correction to be made citing a valuable and authentic source while I refrain from doing any edit relating to the page. I also promise to continually follow the Wikipedia rules and regulations and, thank you for your understanding MasterOliverTwist (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC) @Justlettersandnumbers:[reply]

I have likewise addressed the issue regarding File:Limoblaze_-_Okay_video_shoot.jpg [[1]] image on Draft:Limoblaze as regarding the image missing evidence of permission and have likewise sent the necessary email confirming copyright ownership and making a release declaration for use of the image on Wikipedia. for reference here is the email receipt [Ticket#: 2020112310013509] @Justlettersandnumbers: please do not delete the image as I have done the necessary required of me. thanks and best regards MasterOliverTwist (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request is almost unreadable. It lacks proper capitalization, paragraphs, commas and periods. Wikipedia is administrated by volunteers in their free time. Please reformat it to reduce the amount of time spent purely on understanding the content of the appeal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thanks for the correction, I have simply reformatted my unblock appeal request above as earlier corrected by you. I hope the context of my unblock appeal request is now properly understood. I have gone through WP:PAYTALK as you have pointed and, I now fully understand always to refrain from edits attached with my conflict of Interest. Thanks and regards MasterOliverTwist (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MasterOliverTwist,

Thank you very much for rewriting the request. It is now actually much more readable.

How did you learn about Limoblaze and do you have any connection, perhaps at least an indirect one, to him, his management, family or other affiliations?

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thanks I am always a fan of Gospel Artists and I love to know much more about the notable ones and their style of music. I do not have any connections to Limobloaze be it indirect one, to him, his management, family, or other affiliations. I only learned of his music through a couple of media plays on Tv, his Christian movement on a one-time twitter trend, and African gospel digital playlists on the platform such as sportify coupled with some of his releases with US-based gospel artists such as Travis Greene and DA Truth. Thanks MasterOliverTwist (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification. Would you agree to the following unblock conditions?

Not creating nor submitting new drafts until you have made at least 500 edits to already-existing Wikipedia articles (i.e. the main namespace), without attempting to game the system by making pointlessly small/high-frequent edits. This may take months or years, and it is meant to ensure that the necessary experience and caution are gained in practice rather than theory.
Not creating new articles in the main namespace, until this condition is successfully appealed at WP:AN.
Not creating new articles nor drafts about living persons, until this condition is successfully appealed at WP:AN.
Not editing the article Ada Ehi directly, until this condition is successfully appealed at WP:AN.

You are not required to agree to these conditions; I personally propose them because I believe that unblocking you is safe if you do. If you do agree and are subsequently unblocked, the conditions become binding. The only exceptions are described at WP:BANEX.

Additionally:

As a general recommendation, please avoid directly messaging other editors about content disputes. Instead, please create a discussion on the talk page of the article, then feel free to invite the others to the discussion with a short, neutral notification.
As a general recommendation, please gain experience in non-biographical articles/discussions before jumping into the dangerous area of biographies of living persons.

These recommendations are, well, recommendations. You do not need to agree to them, and you are not bound to them. There is no policy that forbids you from messaging other editors instead of centralizing a discussion, and there is no policy that forces you to avoid biographies entirely. You are especially welcome to carefully make first steps in this area by removing unsourced, questionable statements about living people in non-biographical articles, whenever you stumble upon them. For example, this could be removing clearly irrelevant entries lacking a citation from lists of people in school articles. A common edit summary for such a case could be "removing unsourced (irrelevant?) entry; please provide a citation".

Ideas for constructive contributions can be found at the community portal and the Task Center. Please be careful not to dive in too quickly; take your time to slowly get accustomed to the community and its practices. Always feel free to ask if something is unclear; never feel personally attacked or mistreated when an edit is undone by someone else. When in doubt, rather accept a seemingly incorrect revert than starting a huge discussion about it. Disagreements will happen, but when they happen during a learning phase, they're often a sign of currently learning something new and unexpected. And that's a good sign then.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Justlettersandnumbers, provided that MasterOliverTwist agrees to the conditions, are you fine with unblocking?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "nor submitting" to the first condition to make it include the already-existing draft about Limoblaze, and any other existing drafts with notability problems, as the focus is on gaining actual article editing experience before making further draft edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, this seems to be an entirely reasonable proposal, thank you! I've no objection if you wish to unblock with these conditions. I'd recommend adding " or any related topic " after "Ada Ehi" – that would include Limoblaze (this image, which this user claims to be his own work even though it was apparently taken by somebody else, was taken on the set of, or is a frame from, this video, which shows them together). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thanks for the recommendation, corrections, and insights you have pointed out. I am totally grateful for the guardians. I hope to always do the right thing and follow the laid down rules. I agree to be of good behavior and do what is required of me as you have mentioned above. Thanks and Regards MasterOliverTwist (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, the background information and the kind feedback, Justlettersandnumbers – I thought about "or similar topics" but had already decided against it, as "similar" topics to a musician's biography might be any of "biographies of musicians from the same region", "biographies of musicians", "biographies"... it's too unspecific to be properly enforcable in my opinion. The conditions do however include the topic Limoblaze, as Limoblaze has no article and is a living person. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Limoblaze (November 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 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 music-related topics). 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:Limoblaze 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:Limoblaze, 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.

Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MasterOliverTwist! 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! Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Requesting my User block appeal reviewed Thanks

@Justlettersandnumbers: @ToBeFree: Please, I have kindly done what is demanded of me as you have requested. I have likewise answered the questions you have asked with humble reasons. I am willing and happy to learn while sorting guardians in the Wikipedia community. I am Likewise deeply sorry about my actions earlier which caused me the block due to my ignorance and negligence. I promise to refrain from all improper conduct while I know better not to do certain things. Kindly help review my Unblock appeal request and if there is anything else you need point my attention towards, I will be willing and happy to learn. Thanks and best regards. MasterOliverTwist (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(currently reading, no worries. Got the ping) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome back to Wikipedia, MasterOliverTwist. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thank you once again. I'm happy to learn and, happy to be on board. Best regards MasterOliverTwist (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Trailblazer (May 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Celestina007 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please read both WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Please can you explain how the photo in the article is your 'own work' do you have a COI to disclose? If yes do disclose it.

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:Peter Trailblazer 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:Peter Trailblazer, 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Limoblaze (May 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 Paul W were:

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 music-related topics). 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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Article does not clearly establish notability as evidenced through significant coverage in secondary sources (over-reliance on interview- or PR-based content). Article tone is overly promotional ("amazing", "wonderful"), and also seems to promote a religious perspective; it is not nPOV.

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:Limoblaze 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:Limoblaze, 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.

Paul W (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Testimony Jaga has been accepted

Testimony Jaga, 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!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Limoblaze (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears 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 music-related topics). 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:

Nothing than a list of unreliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Limoblaze 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:Limoblaze, 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peter Trailblazer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Trailblazer 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/Peter Trailblazer 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.

Princess of Ara 09:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts and violating all of the unblock conditions (Special:Diff/991801529), even including the one prohibiting you from editing one specific article. 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:11, 25 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello and Good day, in good faith, I've really waited out to see the outcome of your investigation against me as regards the accusation of sockpuppetry and using multiple accounts. I am in no way tied to such accounts and honestly, I don't know the users of those Wikipedia accounts nor why they have chosen to vandalize articles written on my draft page. I believe if all checks were made it will be clear that I have no connections or affiliations with them. On the second note regarding the violation of a block condition, and with all due respect and humility before the Wikipedia admin that served me the block ~ ToBeFree I believe, the best way to learn is by trying to do things the right way, to learn and to grow in my knowledge base to contribute a great deal to the Wikipedia community. I properly researched and wrote an article, submitted it for review, and followed all the due processes at the help desk which made it acceptable to form one of the articles in the Wikipedia space. This made me really happy to know that my research was worth it and I learned a lot in the process. Having done this, I want to believe this shows my commitment to learning to do things the proper way and following due processes as well as the guidelines and Wikipedia policy for article creation. I will love that you temper your justice against me with mercy as I will never do and I have never done anything to vandalize people's hard work rather I seek to be able to make valuable contributions to the Wikipedia community. I'm deeply and honestly sorry as regards the unblock condition as my article creation was in good faith. Thanks and regards MasterOliverTwist (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The last time you were unblocked, you clearly and specifically promised not to create or submit new drafts until you had made at least 500 edits to already-existing Wikipedia articles. Same for creating new articles. You made exactly 0 edits to already existing articles before violating this. You've shown you haven't the slightest intention of operating in good faith and you have demonstrated you cannot be trusted to uphold your word. Given that, I see no path forward here. Yamla (talk) 09:59, 9 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Yamla my intentions are really in good faith. To be sincere I really do think making endless research and putting up more than 1500 words to make up a meaningful article and following the due process from start to following the due submission process stipulated at the Tea house should at least be able to make up for 500 edits and helped my learning curve. I am deeply sorry if you do not see it that way and I'm willing to learn and do what is required of me. I honestly have the intention of operating in good faith and I meant no harm. Please do look to see my good intentions, efforts, and desire to make meaningful contributions. Thanks and Regards MasterOliverTwist (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. When two other admins whom I highly respect and trust say pretty much the same thing, and it's not a good thing, I don't see a need to really review this independently. As polite as you have been in these requests, I am nevertheless going to give you this very firm warning: do not post another request, at least not one along the lines of the last two (and really, that means think very long and very hard about even doing it before you hit edit), or we 'will revoke your talk page access. Nor should you try emailing any one of us, either. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 11 February 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.

Like Yamla, I'm completely out of hope for this editor to become a trustworthy participant within the next, uh, years. The thing is, we have tried unblocking, and it turned out to be completely unsuccessful, so that's not an option anymore from my point of view. Not until 2025 or so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MasterOliverTwist, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Limoblaze

Hello, MasterOliverTwist. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Limoblaze, 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) 13:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]