Hello, Epcc12345, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Epcc12345,

An article you recently moved to mainspace has been moved back to draft by me. This is because the article was at WP:AFC and articles created in draftspace should go through the process and be reviewed by reviewers. I would advise you do not move any other pages without being moved by a reviewer to avoid being blocked from using Wikipedia. Lapablo (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kakofoni Group, 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. GermanKity (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Kakofoni Groups 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:Kakofoni Groups, 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epcc12345! 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! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kakofoni Group Gallery. Thanks! Hatchens (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kakofoni Group Gallery, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 . 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Babajide Oluwase 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.weforum.org/people/babajide-oluwase. 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 20 February 2023 (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) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page Battle of San Giorgio has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Babajide Oluwase 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/Babajide Oluwase 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 until the discussion has finished.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Van Calebs, 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. GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epcc12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am been accused of what I know nothing about. I don't know this user Kinkordada.my Contribution on AFD is always base on facts with references to support, if any other user chooses to interprete my policy statement most especially after I have state my stands I shouldn't be made to bear such cross. I humbly look forward to a positive outcome, thanks.Epcc12345 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A simple denial isn't sufficient, and your editing pattern does not give me confidence. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

Epcc12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please Girth Summit kindly look closely on the edit pattern of Kinkordada see [1] that is to show the said user is only editing or contributing base on others opinion and most of the user edit are in AFD. Sincerely, I don't know the user but on my edit pattern if in anyway is going against the policy, please bring it to my noticed for future correction so I will restrain from it, I am open to learn and be corrected because my aim is to contributes positively.Thank you. Epcc12345 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No response to Tamzin's query below in six days. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 25 August 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.

• @Ivanvector: Just playing devil's advocate here, is there a possibility that Kinkordada simply copied Epcc's comment without anything illicit by the latter? Feel free to reply by email if there's anything subtle to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: normally if there is private info involved in the decision to block we will mark the block log with {{checkuserblock-account}} or a similar template, and if we don't then the block review is up to admin discretion just like any other review. In this case there was nothing determinate in the private data, other than that both users edit through peer-to-peer proxy services, anonymizing services frequently used by abusive editors. As I recall I didn't think that both accounts were being operated by the same person, but were part of a larger group organizing to vote !keep on subjects they had an interest in promoting (i.e. meatpuppetry and canvassing). If you think that's not the case, or you want to extend good faith, I have no objection to unblocking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivanvector Sincerely I don't know that username , I only edit base on my personal discretion on source I found and nothing more. If my contribution on AFD happens to be much issues, I will stay away from it so issues like this won't arise again. Please kindly unblock me.Epcc12345 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: are you still considering this? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, needed to set aside some time to dig through the AfD history. I'm torn. A lot of the early AfD !votes are on articles with UPE connections, with is often a red flag for UPE (even if the !votes are to delete, since UPE operations will target one another's work). On the other hand, they're heavily clustered toward the start of the alphabet, suggesting someone working through the category of AfDs, which isn't an explanation I can square with paid !votes. And a whole lot of AfDs do have UPE connections, especially if one picks out the names that seem connected to the developing world. And there's a plausible narrative here of someone who saw an article of someone they know at AfD and then got curious about the process. On the third hand, that article was created by a UPE-farm, which is very suspicious, but on the fourth hand, if knowing someone off-wiki who paid for some kind of UPE were blockable, I'd be blocked, and declaring a COI when !voting keep isn't normally in the UPE playbook.

  That's a lot of hands. So, I could conditionally unblock with a ban from AfD, but that wouldn't really fix the problem. If Epcc is an undisclosed paid editor, they don't belong here, period. And if they're just someone in the wrong place at the wrong time, they don't deserve to be banned from part of the project over bad luck. @JBW: Are you free for a 3O here? If I had to pick right now, I'd say I'm at like 55% in favor of unblock, but I'm really on the fence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: I think that Kinkordada and Epcc12345 are unlikely to be the same person, mainly on the basis of differences in use of English, which theoretically could be faked, but I doubt that they are. The question of whether they are both undisclosed paid editors, and if so whether they are connected to one another, is more difficult. They can each be connected to other editors who can be connected to one another, and they could all be one big UPE collective. However, the evidence I have seen would certainly not been enough for me to have blocked Epcc12345: there would have been enough doubt for me to hold back. My threshold for reverting someone else's block is different from that for placing a block myself, but my inclination is to say that in the absence of really persuasive evidence we should probably AGF and unblock. JBW (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've looked at this a bit more. And it'll come down to one question for you, Epcc12345, and I need you to think about it really carefully before you answer, because I'm not going to give you a chance to change your answer once you give it: Here is every article you've edited. Here is drafts. That excludes deleted pages, so add to that list: Patricia Onumonu, Draft:Trish O Couture, Draft:Tammy Nguyen, Kakofoni Group, Draft:Anil Choubey, Draft:Aaron Fjellman, Draft:Dana Schwalbe, Draft:Ahmed Belal, Draft:Aman Shekhar, Draft:Crowley Cheese, Biotique, Fela Akinse, Thokchom Lokeshwar Singh, Garang Wachbaar, Daniel Meszaros (swimmer), Annie Lim, Draft:Emilio Ferro, Battle of San Giorgio, Marianna Majorosi. Of these articles and drafts (the ones in the first link, the ones in the second link, and the ones I just listed), which do you have a conflict of interest with? To be transparent, I am asking because I'm willing to believe you are not a "hired gun" (someone editing for pay for any client), but I do think it's likely that you have engaged in some level of conflict-of-interest editing. This would not be an outright obstacle to unblocking, but it's something you have to be honest about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Van Calebs and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epcc12345. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Van Calebs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epcc12345. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oluwafunke Adeoye, 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) 16:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]