User talk:Samlodias

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ayo Vincent 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/Ayo Vincent 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.

Jamiebuba (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the copy edit issues of this article has now been fully addressed, @Significa liberdade the article shouldn't need any further edits for now, as previously suggested edits from editors after the moving of the article to main space sort of changed the entire context of the article, deleting citations and this was not meant to be. I believe they were trying to make the article better and I honestly thank them for their effort however it almost didn't make the article make any more sense. I have been able to make the necessary adjustments to the article now, taking from their edits while also addressing the concerns you have raised. I believe it should comply with the Wikipedia standards now. I would appreciate you give it another look and I would appreciate suggestions in making further improvements to it so that a consensus can be reached in removing the notice tags placed on the article @Jamiebuba. Thanks Samlodias (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Article does not appear to be written in a neutral point of view. Please rewrite to be more encyclopedic and ensure that statements are backed up by reliable sources before resubmitting.

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:Tech Herfrica 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Turnagra (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello and Thank You for your insight @Turnagra: as regards your recent review on Draft: Tech Herfrica they were very helpful. I have made adjustment to the writing style and made corrections to the context of the article where necessary backed by reliable independent references. Do give it a look to see that it now meets the criteria for the article to be moved to main space. I would also appreciate your advice accordingly in more ways of making it better. Samlodias (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You have used sources that are either clearly noted as paid placement, unmarked press releases or marketing content, or blatant fake content farms which house unmarked SEO placement. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. These sources step far beyond those policies. Please carefully evaluate your references in the future, and ensure that you are in compliance with our mandatory paid editing disclosures. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• theustimes.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.theustimes.com

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ada Ehi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

A neutral point of view is needed for the article, and this article doesn't show that. For example, "The company’s founding vision was to create a scalable, tech-enabled alternative to traditional cinema," isn't neutral and should be modified. Additionally, external links (such as the links to circuits.tv and circuits.media) aren't used in the body of the article and should be removed.

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:Circuits (Streaming Platform) 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 13:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @HurricaneZeta thank you for your comment. I have simply made the necessary adjustment to make the article comply as per the comment you left me. Kindly do help give a second look and help move the article to main article space. I really appreciate your directive to making the article comply Samlodias (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @HurricaneZeta I didn't know if you got the notification for my last response. Kindly wanted to re-notify you to assist in taking a look that I have effected the corrections you pointed out on the article initially. I would appreciate if you can kindly help give it a look. Samlodias (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Circuits (Streaming Platform). Thanks! HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 21:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @HurricaneZeta thank you for your insights once again. I did a fix to all the heading and narrowed down to a suitable section title where applicable to capture the context of the article appropriately using other existing articles in the category as a guide. I would appreciate your re-review of the article or feedback as I believe it now complies and can now be moved to main space. Samlodias (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I would wait for another reviewer to review it. We are all volunteers and the current backlog is around 2 months, you can see the tips for a speedier review and other tips for the article when the article is not a quick fail HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 23:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the entire context under every of the section headers which was initially submitted all by myself seeing that I failed the submission twice and learnt from the mistake each time. Although because you mentioned some of the section headers weren't necessary, I removed them and referenced similar articles such as that of Netflix and Amazon prime videos for suitable headers to capture the context of the article as it should. Which I now believe complies and see no reason why it shouldn't be moved to main space now. I appreciate what you do and every member of the team and I know how the backlogs can take a toll on everyone on the board of reviewers. Thank you once again for your insight and your committed service @HurricaneZeta. Samlodias (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Samlodias. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:Samlodias. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Samlodias|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. bonadea contributions talk 15:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Bonadea, I do not have any conflict of interest neither am I paid on the said topic or expecting to be paid. I am simply writing on the recent development in the landscape of entertainment in the Nigerian movie (Nollywood) industry. Also, I do well to always follow all written guidelines in article creation and if you did look through the draft edits, you will see that I try to write more about it mostly in my spare time while carefully gathering the facts. I as well also try to ask for help in the draft construction to make sure it complies when I can. The only mistake I did initially when I started the edit of this draft in the first place was to use an AI in assistance for the construction of the article for which I see the errors it was prone to, and I have already striped down and had to manually try reconstructing the article using the sources gathered, summarizing it and taking reference to similar articles to this topic on Wikipedia in like manner. Samlodias (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, thank you for giving more context with your comment. I can now take out the whole article, and manually write it following the right guidelines for article creation Samlodias (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)