User talk:Repsjared

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

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:Aftershock PC 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.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Repsjared! 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! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock PC, 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.

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!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Repsjared (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Repsjared! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Aftershock PC and Ashton Hall, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Repsjared. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Aftershock PC, 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:Repsjared. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Repsjared|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. Gheus (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gheus. I had disclosed I was editing the article for product discount which is no longer on the table. However, I did try to edit the page neutrally but my requests were not completely granted. I do not intend to make further edits on the article as I was advised to walk away after making my last proposed edits. Repsjared (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Repsjared It is quite clear that you are doing some paid work without disclosure (Protozoa Pictures, Florian Dagoury, Aftershock PC, and now Prakash Nair) as well as other COI editing (such as mentioning yourself in a film). I appreciate your volunteer work but you have to be transparent. Paid and COI editing is allowed on Wikipedia as long as you strictly comply with WP:PAID. There are many long-term paid editors, see, User:HRShami, so it is fine. I hope you will disclose soon. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I’d like to clarify a few points:

First, while there was previously an arrangement for product placement in relation to Aftershock, that collaboration was terminated due to issues with the page, and I have since completely walked away from that involvement. I am not currently engaged in any paid editing or undeclared COI activity.

Regarding the film I’m associated with: I believe I’m within my rights, per Wikipedia policy, to create or nominate an article about a film I have contributed to — provided I adhere strictly to Wikipedia:Npov, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:COI. Any such page should be judged on its notability and source quality, not on assumptions about the contributor’s intent.

As for the Prakash Nair and Florian Dagoury entries, I ask that they not be unfairly discredited without specific policy-based concerns. If there are factual or sourcing issues with any article, I’m open to collaborative discussion on the talk pages. However, I respectfully request that we refrain from assumptions about bad faith or undisclosed paid work. Let’s please focus on the content, not the contributor, in line with Wikipedia:AGF.

Thank you. Repsjared (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. It would be better if you use edit requests queue for COI edits. Gheus (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I’d like to clarify again that I have acted in good faith throughout, and I do take Wikipedia’s COI and paid editing guidelines seriously. I do not believe my recent contributions fall under undisclosed COI, so this is blanket dismissal of valid work. Repsjared (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Repsjared,

Thank you for creating Mann Robinson.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The sources present here are not enough to verify the page, to mark this reviewed we need more sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ZDRX}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ZDRX:,

Thank you for the note and for reviewing the article. I appreciate the feedback. I’ll take a closer look at the sourcing and work on improving the references to meet the verification standards. I’ll reach out here if I have any questions. Repsjared (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Repsjared! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Article review, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]