User talk:Gabriel601

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

You cannot WP:G6 an article because there was an AfD a decade ago that resulted in a delete consensus. That's not what that criterion is for. WP:G4 is closer, but the article needs to be pretty much the same, and none of the ones you've tagged meet that criterion (as when the AfD's took place, they hadn't been signed, whereas now, they had all played on various teams). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I left a message on your talk page. Just getting to see yours. You welcome. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:51, 19 June 2024 (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 SafariScribe 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:Chioma Avril Rowland 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:41, 3 July 2024 (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 SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:Genesis (restaurant) 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:53, 3 July 2024 (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 SafariScribe 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:Ulugbekhon Maksumov 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gabriel601, I will advise and pled you stop the Disruptive edits to my contributions, I have never came to your articles to tag them or said anything bad, stop the personal attacks and I’m only defending myself, You are seriously after me and it’s very bad, let me be, I’ve done nothing wrong, you have been blocked on Wikipedia because of your activities, look for others to put your eyes on and leave good editors who are just defending themselves and articles, I’ve seen all the comments you gave me I let it slide, please don’t force me to report you, I’ve reverted your edits. Be careful. Madeforall1 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please go ahead to make your report. Good bye. Gabriel (……?) 11:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601

This will be my final response to the accusations of sockpuppetry and paid editing. These allegations are both unfounded and distressing.

Accusing editors of collecting money for editing or engaging in sockpuppetry without evidence is not only unacceptable but also damaging to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Imagine if similar baseless accusations were made against you—it would be equally unjust and disheartening.

I urge you to refrain from making these deceitful claims. Your actions are making Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment for editors. Please remember that you are not an administrator, and such serious accusations should be substantiated with concrete evidence and addressed through the proper channels. Afrowriter (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It disgust me when you mention of concrete evidence. Of course they are concrete evidence and I am ready to forward that to any administrator who requested via my email. You can deceive others but not me. They are some certain things you can deny and they are some certain things you cannot deny rather than to apologise if you really wanna be a help to the community. Coming to my talk page to say things like this I hope when you are finally caught. You will also have to apologise to me just like you have been apologising to everyone here User_talk:MarkIblog#Requesting_to_unblock_my_account_Please! Nnadigoodluck and Versace1608. I would have also love to involve @Dreamy Jazz, incase you need me to forward all concrete evidence against you to their email but I don't know how busy his gonna be as his very good in looking into cases like this. I saw what you wrote here User_talk:Liz#How_Come_? but it still doesn't changes the fact that you Afrowriter and your master sock account AfrowriterX are both welcomed 4th July 2019 and 7th July 2019 here User_talk:Afrowriter#Welcome! and here User_talk:MarkIblog#Welcome!. There is nothing like that blocked account trying to impersonate you because they already had the name. You stopped editing wikipedia after creating both account because your master sock account unblock request was never accepted. But nothing changes the fact and truth that you were both welcomed closed to same date. Ip might not be traced due to the long run you left wikipedia but nothing changes the fact that you are connected to that master sock account. Lastly, I am not personal attacking you with a bad faith. But asking for concrete evidence will just made you proof to the community that I was clearly doing this with a good faith and not a bad person because I have all concrete evidence and I have never disruptive any of your edit because there is no point fighting with you while making useful contributions. But being a sock I don't think it makes any sense why you can still appeal on your master sock account. Read my reason regarding to my unblock account " I left wikipedia for over 6 months ". If I had created other account and not being traced by the IP connected to my blocked account what encouragement will I be passing to other upcoming editors. Gabriel (……?) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601, have you made a WP:SPI report? If not, then file one.

Please refrain from saying things like It disgust me when you mention of concrete evidence and You can deceive others but not me. Furthermore, once you have filed a report please comment about this only at the relevant report. It does not help the administrator who is reviewing the report if the evidence is on multiple different pages and it also will not speed up the review of said report if you comment about this elsewhere.

I would suggest that you follow the advice at Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets § What NOT to do, including Do not make personal comments about users, edit war, or argue which does apply more widely than WP:SPI. I also agree with the advice from Safari Scribe below.

@Afrowriter:, while I fully understand being accused of being a sockpuppet is stressful I would also encourage you to avoid language like cook up your lies. The administrators will do a proper review before taking any action. If you want to comment on any report filed at WP:SPI, you are welcome to do so.

A general reminder that incivility is disruptive, and if it becomes too disruptive further action may be taken. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gabriel601,

I saw your replies on Liz's talk page but decided to bring it here at least to avoid flooding Liz's TP. First, calm down, take a breath, and relax. While I believe you understand Wikipedia well, there's no need to explain how it works, and wants to remind you that it is a volunteer project. Yes, we maybe from same country— Nigeria, and though we don't know each other, we're both trying our best here. You might not know that I'm a Catholic seminarian almost done with my philosophy studies and heading into theology. One of the best practices on Wikipedia is to avoid personal attacks. When another editor asks you to stop, you should stop. As Afrowriter mentioned, there's no need to tell others they are sick; there’s a process for that, and it's called the WP:SPI, which you have already filed a report.

Sometimes, editors may quickly escalate issues to WP:ANI, which you know isn't going to be fine. I understand you might be frustrated, as I do sometimes, especially when our volunteer work is criticized. It's important to focus on the positive aspects like the barnstars, praises, and thanks you receive. If I were harsh, you could have ended up at ANI for calling against my user rights as a reviewer. To me and many other editors, you're an established editor with significant contributions, and it's evident that Afrowriter finds your actions frustrating. Even if dealing with SPAs, frustration should not be your priority.

Remember, the wrongs we commit are forgiven by God, and we should extend that grace to our fellow humans. My advice will be: calm down, participate in AFDs, and continue contributing as you do. Admins will address the report you filed at WP:SPI. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gabriel601,

You should listen to Safari Scribe. You should remember that you were just unblocked from an indefinite block on June 1st and right now, you seem to be going out of your way to make enemies of other editors, making unfounded accusations (you still haven't filed an SPI report), saying insulting things. I guess you are frustrated by something but that is no excuse to attack other editors and make personal remarks EVEN IF an editor turns out to be a sockpuppet. It reflects badly on you and frankly right now you seem a bit out-of-control. If this continues, at some point, you will be brought to ANI and you have to ask yourself, "Who will speak up for me?" Have you made allies and colleagues during your time on Wikipedia or just enemies? This is an encyclopedia but editors are people and no one wants to be attacked and belittled.

As SafariScribe states, use the processes that exist if you have concerns about another editor, do not go around and say rude things about them. You need to present evidence, not just suspicions, or this will turn out very badly for you. I have seen fantastic editors, editors who have been here for many, many years, get blocked because they couldn't let go of a grudge and the community had had enough of their fighting and battleground attitude. No editor is irreplaceable, not you and not me, and you want to be a positive contributor here not a headache. Focus on the work, not other editors and you'll be fine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I have chosen to overlook this case. Life goes on. Gabriel (……?) 01:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Scribe Well understood. Will put that into practice and apologies against your user reviewer right. Gabriel (……?) 00:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabriel, I trust you're doing fine. So, I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Achievers Award and was a bit baffled by what you meant them. These comments will have a great deal on you if you do not use this chance to explain what you meant and probably apologise. This is a personal attack to especially me and CFA. I do not want to take this to WP:ANI just yet, especially because I think this is something we can amicably sort out without involving the drama board, just as other users have described it and explained to you. Again, I do not want to take this to ANI since I think we can sort ourselves out, which why I am here, and not at ANI.

Let me first show you how I PRODed the article in question and it got draftified 17 minutes later by the creator only to make edits they called "copyedit"s to the draft (Special:Diff/1232409898, Special:Diff/1232410338) without doing anything about my original PROD reason, then they moved it back to mainspace with the summary I’ve done a General Copyedit and clean up as article is Notable, after improving this article and done some Copyedit, moving it to article space., of which their edits did literally nothing in improving the article in terms of notability, which was my concern.

See their comment on their talk page here which made no sense to me when they said I’ve treated your concern which is Copyedit, read through the article and check this source, all independent source. Is there any information lacking?. My concern wasn't "copyedit" but the notability of this article. If there was a copyedit issue, I would have tagged the page or most likely do the copyedit myself, since that is part of my main interest on English Wikipedia. If you followed the initial comments, you'd see that they already started personal attack by calling my edits bad faith, I take that as an attack because it is obviously not true.

You should also see our conversation at my talk page here User_talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2024/07_(July)#I’ve_address_your_concern, where I appreciated them for their work, but they didn't seem to listen.

I do not have a problem with Madeforall1 here at all, I just wanted you to follow what and why this article got nominated and why I got baffled by their unhelpful comments at the AfD, which I truly stated there that their comments were nothing but nonsensical since it was no longer adding value to the AfD discussion. I was more baffled by your comments when you mentioned CFA and told him to not be in support of bad government. and that you have gone through this discussion and the person who is wrong here is the AFD nominator. He started the personal attack. Please, you should now explain to me how I started the personal attack, I do not take this one seriously though.

I am more concerned by Who knows if those editors went to acquire user level permission just to punish other people or make other people worship them? Who knows if they take money too to edit?. I have no business with what they said on their User page about Paid editing. Because even sock accounts do lie as well they have no other account., you were obviously refering to me here because I clearly put on my user page this disclosure.

Can you please provide the evidence that acquired user level permission just to punish other people or make other people worship me,

Can you please explain what you meant by bad government and the subsequent comments I highlighted above, and provide evidence that I am involved in paid editing? and that I am a sockpuppet and a liar?

Your explanations would be greatly appreciated as it will clear the air and help you also stand out. If I do not get sufficient explanations, I will have to initiate an ANI thread, I just don't want to be a participant of that noticeboard, again, which is why I am here.

Pinging @Madeforall1, SafariScribe, and CFA: who are aware of this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this concern if you can provide me anywhere I said you get paid to edit, or you are a sock, or any place I have said you are a liar. I wasn’t even expecting seeing this as it’s a past. If I was you. I will definitely call this a Bye gone because I didn’t came here to start fighting or arguing with other editors. Your language made the other editor “Madeforall1” feel like his not welcome. If I was you. I won’t be using such language such as “Poor” and the “childish” of a thing which looks like an insult. If you can check. I haven’t been contributing lately due to my other activities i do offline. So theirs no point if you need me to start explaining up and down than what I’m just saying. It’s a bygone and you were never pointed for anything than letting you know you need to calm down while relating with other people. As for the ANI you can still go ahead and make a thread. I might not be there with you to defend myself in case you have seen things from a wrong way due to my time schedule. Have got better things giving me happiness than coming to Wikipedia to start fighting. And if things are being seeing wrongly and I get blocked. It didn’t take my life away from my body. Life still goes on. I am not a troublesome person if you know me too well. I don’t even mind giving you the world if it could cost my peace of mind for sure. So have a nice day my bro & don’t be offended as you were never pointed out for anything. Gabriel (……?) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am baffled. While I will ignore the grammatical and spelling errors, you said you will address this concern if you can provide me anywhere I said you get paid to edit, or you are a sock, or any place I have said you are a liar when I clearly just quoted your statements from your AfD comment. This is not a matter of fighting (what would we be doing that for?), this is a matter of you realising the weight of the comments you make. Madeforall1 didn't mention that they're not welcome and nothing, in all these, implies that.

Without further arguments, I would advise you to go to the AfD discussion and strike your comments especially for the fact that they're very much of a personal attack, I do not need an apology from you because I have seen worst cases than yours and didn't bother about an apology either, but you'd have to apologise to CFA for dragging them into something that have absolutely no value.

Like I said earlier, if I wanted to go to ANI, I would have, with all my explanations I did here, if I was unreasonable and did not want peace, I would have gone straight up there to ANI and it would have told on you. I have also seen a lot of your other dramas where you accused other editors of paid editing and sockpuppetry without evidence, it is not a good thing to do, and just as other editors have pointed out to you, it is better to gather allies than to gather enemies on Wikipedia, I am not part of the latter though. Strike your comment and apologise. Not an obligation though, but that is what a rational person would do. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘While you will ignore the grammatical and spelling errors’. Lol, Vanderwaalforces, you been funny. But I understand in life different people, different behaviors. The kind of language you been using on other editors to make them feel like they are not welcomed not everybody are strong to endure that especially to new editors. Go to the user talk page and see what “Liz” had to say. Your statement sounds so bully but I will rather choose to ignore than challenging with you as it doesn’t go with the Wikipedia guidelines. Before you came here how was my response to both Safari and Liz. Aside that I saw so much sense in what they are saying which lead to that response and I had to overlook the case even if I had evidence I won’t want to upload publicly for security reasons and I still had to swear that if my evidence are fake I should be blocked permanently. I have choose to overlook my past. So let that be and you talk about the main topic why you came here. I am not a bad person & I don’t talk about people spelling or grammars or belittle anyone. I don’t think I have ever called anyone a sock aside from that account I know too well. I don’t think I have ever quarreled with anyone aside from that account i know too well. Like I said bro. All this are now by gone. Life goes on. And I don’t intend to work on my English even if you pick errors. It won’t take me to heaven neither be a vandal to Wikipedia. Gabriel (……?) 13:33, 24 July 2024 (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 CFA was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:Rigasa Railway Station 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.

C F A 💬 17:30, 4 August 2024 (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 Vanderwaalforces was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The role in Nigeria is either a "Special adviser" or a "Senior special assistant". There's nothing as such "Senior Special Adviser". The scope of this draft is also confusing as it is not clear whether you're talking about "Special Advisor" (as opposed to "Senior Special Adviser") or you're talking about "Senior Special Assistant". For context, see United Kingdom's and Norway's articles on Special advisers.

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:Nigeria SSA 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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Will be worked on at my free time. Gabriel (……?) 11:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Young Duu 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Table needs sources. This doesn't meet WP:GNG.

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:Senior Special Assistant (Nigeria) 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.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Special Assistant (Nigeria), 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!

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rigasa Railway Station, 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 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!

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Gabriel601

This is to notify you that I have made a complaint about your behaviour to the admin notice board. I find it very unacceptable, the language such as "lying", "deceiving the public" and other very abusive languages you used to refer to me.

I have therefore lodged a formal complaint.

Kind regards

@Cfaso2000 Cfaso2000 (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cfaso2000 didn't use the appropriate template, here is a link to the discussion: WP:ANI#uncivil behaviour by User:Gabriel601. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Schazjmd, already replied him or her over there. Gabriel (……?) 17:27, 9 September 2024 (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 Greenman was:

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:

Besides being badly-written, "one of the most leading sport betting website and app in Africa" is promotional and unsupported by the 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 after they have been resolved.

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

Greenman (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gabriel601! Having an article draft 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! Greenman (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you what to make a point in your deletion rationales but most times, it is not coherent enough to non-Nigerians and sometimes Nigerians themselves. For the Next Star Award, it would be nice if you can pull up a source assessment using the {{Source assess table}}. Can you do that? I want to assure you that you are doing a good job but be slow and steady. You’ve been around for a while but there’s still a lot to learn. Best, Reading Beans 11:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well understood. Will work on that. Thanks & wishing you a blessed day this Sunday. Gabriel (……?) 12:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]