Okah Ewah Edede

Your submission at Articles for creation: S. K. E. Udeh-Okoye has been accepted

S. K. E. Udeh-Okoye, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing with a possible paid conflict of interest

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

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:Okah Ewah Edede. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Okah Ewah Edede|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. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @SamHolt6, thanks for contacting me with your concern, however, you are completely mistaken in your assumption. I'm a published writer with an interest in various subjects. Whenever I research on a subject in search engines and don't find it or them on Wikipedia, I'm surprised that the world's largest online encyclopedia does not have any information on the subject, so I try to correct this by writing on it. It is for this reason I'm not using a pseudonym as is the norm here. Thanks for sharing these thoughts with me, butyou truly did assume wrongly. Thanks. TheWickedAndTheWise 21:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Okah Ewah Edede: ok, thank you for your prompt response. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SamHolt6, and thank you too for sharing the concern with me. I actually do appreciate it, and moving forward, I guess I should write more on nonliving subjects or concentrate more on editing already existing articles that needs help to read better or be expanded. Thanks you, I do appreciate the communication. TheWickedAndTheWise 22:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have an undisclosed 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. MER-C 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It was Cicero that said, "Summum ius summa iniuria" (extreme justice is extreme injustice. @MER-C this block is unnecessary because @SamHolt6 had already called my attention to the issue and I explained my position and it was resolved. The picture that was dredged up for violating Wikipedia's copyright laws is a picture I used on an article that was rejected via Afc submission. I never posted it to the mainspace. I submitted that article and the picture file:Jomaa.jpg via Afc and it was rejected. I never resubmitted it, I forgot about it and moved on. Please, I appeal this ban and solemnly beseech the admins to reconsider. I understand the behavior that led to the misconception and the ban and have decided, after my discussion with User:SamHolt6 to restrict myself to purely academic topics that are nonbiographical and non-brand subjects to avoid further misunderstanding of intent. Please, I would appreciate it if this ban is lifted. TheWickedAndTheWise 18:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
Also, one must not place content copyrighted elsewhere anywhere on Wikipedia. Please tell us what content is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please read and heed. WP:PAID and WP:COI --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Off-wiki evidence contradicts this appeal. MER-C 18:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C, and this off-Wiki evidence is irrefutable proof of guilt? Please, direct me to this or these evidence, so that I can put up my defence.

PS: Oh for goodness sake. Justice has nothing to do with it. You were blocked to prevent damage and disruption to this encyclopedia. The damage caused by including material copyrighted elsewhere could be severe. The damage caused by by undeclared paid editors is sometimes more subtle, but it is still not acceptable. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Salus Wikapediae suprema lex esto. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@(schalte ein) I uploaded that picture in error, and I take responsibility for that. Apart from that mistake, I have never uploaded any file that is copyrighted. Unless there is something else subterranean which you are refusing to disclose to me, then justice is being served in the harshest form to a first time offender. Please, do reconsider your action against me. Even though the posting of the copyrighted picture a mistake, I take full responsibility for it and ask for clemency TheWickedAndTheWise 19:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am appealing once more to be allowed to rejoin the community. I love being here and know that I will make valuable contributions to this project. I solemnly pledge to adhere to all rules of the community. I make this pledge with a profound sense of responsibility. I'm a part of this community and will henceforth dedicate myself to the highest level of probity. The mistakes I have made cannot be undone, but I'm staking my name to my future actions (I publish and edit with my real identity). I pray that this appeal is considered by the admins in the spirit of a second chance. I rest my case in the hope and faith of clemency. Merci TheWickedAndTheWise 21:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Reviewing admin

Feel free to email me. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 22:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm have emailed you, @(schalte ein)

Sorry, you are not an admin reviewing this block. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 23:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal

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

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

---

Request reason:

Once more, I'm appealing to the admins, particularly to MER-C, to accept my appeal and rescind the ban on my account. I have gone through the terms and understand the reason for my block. I henceforth promise to adhere to the rules and if I am ever found wanting in this regard, my account should be blocked. Please, I solemnly pledge to take every action necessary to remain within the acceptable framework and to declare any conflict of interest. Please, I once more appeal for clemency as a first time offender. TheWickedAndTheWise 21:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Unanswered appeal

Please @MER-C, @(schalte ein), and other admins here, can someone attend to my appeal.

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

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

---

Request reason:

having gone through the WP:TOU, I have enlightened myself on the community guidelines and solemnly pledge to adhere strictly to the dictates of the policy. Please, I'm asking that the admins should look into my plea. TheWickedAndTheWise 05:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You haven't actually addressed whether you've been paid to edit Wikipedia. You also haven't taken any steps to comply with the terms of WP:PAID, which requires you to disclose who has paid you. I've raised these issues because your statement here seems to insinuate that you've previously violated the terms of the use. However, you haven't given us any details. How can we know whether you understand our rules if you don't even reference them? Please follow the instructions in WP:GAB. Also, please just make a single unblock request. As you've seen, having multiple unblock requests open at once does not speed up the unblock process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Block appeal

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

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, @MER-C, having gone through the reason for the block and rejection of my previous appeals, I took out time to educate myself on the community guidelines regulating members conduct here, and I understand that I infringed on the rules of engagement. Not only did I not declare my paid status, but I also committed negligence by uploading a copyrighted picture, which is a clear case of vandalism. Though this was done in ignorance, there are no excuses for carelessness, I can now guarantee that such mistakes can never be committed by me again. I'm sorry for whatever vandalism that my action or inaction may have caused this noble platform. Please, I'm appealing, on the grounds of clemency for a contrite first offender, that the indefinite block slammed on my account to be lifted. Going forward, I promise to adhere strictly to the community guidelines and to also contribute to making this platform retain its position of prominence. Knowing how busy that the admins are, and understanding the enormous sacrifice of your voluntary service here, I want to say thank you for taking out time from your busy schedules to consider my appeal. Eternal love and light to you all. TheWickedAndTheWise 10:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as stale only; you may make another, hopefully more persuasive request. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

• Pending review, I've emailed DFO Nosebagbear (talk)
• Thanks, @Nosebagbear, I have learnt my lesson. TheWickedAndTheWise 09:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: it's been about a month: any insight? only (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Only: - personally I'm not sure, I reached out and received some additional information. Not all of it continued to be confirmable, so I remain unsure either way. A major nuisance for TheWicked I'm absolutely aware, but I just don't feel in a position to make a clear accept or decline. Hopefully another admin will have better luck Nosebagbear (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, we need to close this unblock request, it has been 3 months. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797:, I can procedurally close it, which is what we often do in cases that no admin has been able to make a clear judgement on. No-one else has reached out to me, so it's not a case of individuals reaching the same process as me. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature

You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Remove anything in the Signature: text box. (It might already be empty.)
4. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:T. G. S. Mahesh

Hello, Okah Ewah Edede. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "T. G. S. Mahesh".

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 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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)