User talk:Bida thomas

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

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This is a personal CV not a Wikipedia article.

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 User:Bida thomas/sandbox 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bida thomas! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Bida thomas/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages 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. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article Emmanuel Khamis Richard has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Leonidlednev (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have added many credible sources to the article. Thank you Bida thomas (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emmanuel Khamis Richard 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/Emmanuel Khamis Richard 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) 18:20, 6 January 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 97198 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:Gideon Sarpong 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.

97198 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for the contributions to Yei River County. You added a lot of info to the page, but not so many in-line references.

Could you maybe add references to the content you wrote? Especially when you mention reports such as (IRNA, 2014), it would be better to refer to the report with a <ref> tag and a link. Have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners if in doubt. Let me know if you need any help :) --Broc (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I will do just that. Thank you Bida thomas (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on User:Bida thomas, 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 consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:00, 13 January 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 JBW was:

(1) This draft is not written from a neutral point of view, as required for a Wikipedia article. It is unambiguously promotional and laudatory. (2) Resubmitting a declined draft without making any changes to address the reasons for the rejection is unlikely to serve any useful purpose, and takes reviewers away from more useful work, such as reviewing drafts which have not yet been reviewed, or which have been improved since their last submission.

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:Gideon Sarpong 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.

JBW (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morobo County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IOM. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bida thomas! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know @Kj cheetham Bida thomas (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO). Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Arjayay I saw your comment just now and it prompted me to take a look at the article created this afternoon by @Bida thomas. I do not think that this is ready to be an article. It should have been created as a draft first as I believe it needs some attention and review. Thus I have (boldly) moved it to be a draft article. It can now be found at Draft:Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO) 10mmsocket (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bida thomas - Ditto for Draft:Stephen Ameyu Martin Mulla and Draft:Darling Wisdom Academy. Please stop creating low quality articles in main article space. Create them as drafts first. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@10mmsocket duly noted. I will definitely do better in the coming days. Bida thomas (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bida thomas- Ditto for Draft:Alex Lodiong Sakor Eyobo How many more have you created? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bida thomas - Ditto for Draft:Alfred Futuyo Karaba 10mmsocket (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bida thomas - ditto for Draft:Rin Tueny Mabor 10mmsocket (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Arjayay this is noted. I will work on this. Thank you Bida thomas (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bida thomas. 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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:Bida thomas. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bida thomas|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. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @10mmsocket, good day. It is unfortunate that you think I have a financial stake in the articles I create. I am not being paid for any edits I make rather I am using information from credible sources to improve South Sudan related content on Wikipedia. Thank you Bida thomas (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bida, the problem is you are not using sources that meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and you writing from the point of view of an advocate rather then from a neutral point of view. Maybe you do not have a financial interest but your approach has all the key indicators of someone with at least a conflict of interest, even if unintentional. So far, most of your work has been unsuccessful here so at the very least its time to take a step back to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to write for an encyclopedia, which is quite different than from writing as a journalist, academic or for social media. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@S0091, sure all my work has either been deleted or rejected. Lemme take a step back to see more examples of Wikipedia articles. Thank you Bida thomas (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I suggest looking at articles are WP:Good article status. Not that you need to create articles at the level but it gives you an idea of the overall layout, writing style, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is serious. Bida thomas (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2023 (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 S0091 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 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.

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:

Submitted without improvement after being moved from mainspace. Many of the sources are not reliable and this is written like an advert (see also advocacy).

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:Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO) 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.

S0091 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Despite messages above, you continue to create pages which are unambiguously promotional in character. A large proportion of the pages you have created have clearly been written to give readers a favourable impression of their subjects. It should be impossible to tell by reading a Wikipedia article whether it was written by someone who has a good opinion, a bad opinion, or no opinion at all about the subject of the article. It seems that you have very strong opinions concerning certain matters, and are keen to publicise views which you believe to be just and right. That is fine, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. I am willing to accept your statement above that you are not being paid to edit, but I can quite see why someone might get the impression that you are. You really need to look carefully at what you write, and make sure that it expressed in neutral terms. JBW (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message and guidance. I have also noticed that all of the pages I created and were reviewed earlier have been deleted. Looks like you have been worried about the speed at which I have been making edits and also creating new articles in the past few days. I reiterate that none of the content I attempt to work on is either promotional or am I being paid for. Looks like it is quite tough here, and I see that.

Before attempting to create those basic articles I made, I have looked through several Wikipedia pages and I have been using them as a guide in my work, but it is sad that I am still not getting it right. I will give a few more tries. Learning is all about trial and error.

Thank you. Bida thomas (talk) 00:25, 15 January 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 S0091 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Submitted without improvement after being moved from mainspace.

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:Stephen Ameyu Martin Mulla 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.

S0091 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 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 S0091 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:Rin Tueny Mabor 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.

S0091 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 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 S0091 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:

Also submitted without improvement after being moved from mainspace.

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:Alfred Futuyo Karaba 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.

S0091 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have read all of your comments above, including your answer to my message. You have evidently had a very discouraging start to editing Wikipedia. Most of us when we start have some problems, because we don't yet know about Wikipedia's policies and so on, but you have had the bad luck to have a worse experience than many of us. The problems have been all, or almost all, to do with creating new articles. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. JBW (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@JBW very discouraging start indeed. I am no more interested in editing Wikipedia. Lemme shift my focus to some other things. Bida thomas (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can fully understand that, but it's a great pity. I'm sure from what I saw of your editing that under different circumstances you could have become a really good contributor. JBW (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

So you've changed your mind after less than 24 hours? 331dot (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, yes, I have. Please do review my drafts and advice accordingly:

Draft:Alex Lodiong Sakor Eyobo

Draft:Dr. John Garang Mausoleum Bida thomas (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

..and you have re-created a previously-deleted article almost the same as when it was deleted? Why? 10mmsocket (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have improved it, you will notice. It is very different from the deleted one. Will keep working on it as time passes. Bida thomas (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, Bida Thomas. As you know, I have been more willing than some other people to assume good faith on your part. Perhaps, therefore, you can imagine how I now feel, having found that my generosity was unfounded, as at least part of what you have said has not been in good faith. Or perhaps you can't. Anyway, let's move on from that.

You have continued to post unambiguously promotional material, despite what you have been told about doing so. Since you either can't or won't stop doing so when asked to, it is difficult to think of any other way of getting you to stop other than by blocking you from editing. The fact that you have also made deliberately false statements about yourself also reduces the extent to which your word can be trusted on other matters. For example, there has to be a reduction of my willingness to set aside the fact that, as I said above, much of your editing looks like paid advocacy, and assume that it isn't. Anyway, it doesn't make a lot of difference, because persistent promotional editing, continuing after warnings, is unacceptable no matter what the background.

In view of those considerations, I have blocked you indefinitely from editing. If you are willing to correct the misleading statements you have made about yourself, and to undertake to comply in future with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including those regarding promotion and conflict of interest, and if you think there are good reasons why unblocking you will benefit the project, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then post the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page, replacing the words "your reason here" as appropriate. If you do choose to do that, make sure you correct any inaccurate statements you have made about yourself or your editing, including what you have said on the conflict of interest noticeboard. If necessary I will also be able to supplement anything you say by providing information by email to whatever administrator reviews your request. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy prevents me from posting all of the relevant information on Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good luck @JBW! Bida thomas (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bida thomas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Darling Wisdom Academy, 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) 15:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bida, the following conversation is taken from my talk page. It seems to me that it is likely to be more helpful to have it here, since it concerns you more than anyone else. If you woukd still like to be unblocked then I suggest you read it, and think particularly about what I have said about promotional editing. You are very welcome to post an unblock request. If you do, then I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before making any unblock request, if you haven't already read it. If you can persuade any administrator that unblocking you is a good idea then they are welcome to unblock you, without consulting me. Also, of course, I will be happy to unblock you than to leave you blocked if you can persuade me that you will be able to avoid making the mistakes which led to the block. (I emphasise that I don't like keeping good faith editors blocked, and I will be much happier to unblock you if you can justify doing so, but I don't think it will be justifiable unless you can make it clearthat you understand the reasons for the block. JBW (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello @JBW User: Bida thomas is a member of the Wikimedia community user group in South Sudan, he encountered a block that he didn't understand and he has is a new but also active contributor maybe we would have more time to asses and see how best to help him out thanks Lomoraronald (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lomoraronald: As you will have seen if you have read my comments on Bida's talk page, I put some work into writing messages to him trying to explain what the problems were. Many editors would not have bothered to do that, preferring to just spend a few seconds posting a pre-written generic templated warning. I put in the extra effort in the hope of helping him to deal with the problems, and avoid being blocked from editing. When another editor suggested that Bida was doing undisclosed paid editing, I wrote "It may be more a case of someone with strong views about politics and social justice trying to use Wikipedia to promote what they believe is just and right." That again was an attempt to help him avoid being blocked. Also, I am far more willing to unblock blocked editors to give them another chance than most administrators; consequently I would be very willing to unblock Bida if he could give justification for doing so. However, you say that he "didn't understand" the block, whereas it is normally considered that one of the requirements for unblocking a blocked editor is that they do understand the reasons for the block; if they don't understand the reasons then they are unlikely to be able to avoid making the same mistakes again. I will say a few things about how the block came about, in the hope that they may help.

1. There was the issue of promotional editing. Most of the pages that Bida created did not look to me like outright spam; if they had, then I would have blocked much earlier, and not pent time trying to advise him. However, the pages all had an essentially promotional character, and I was by no means the only person to think so, as at least 7 other editors have done one or more of nominating pages he created for deletion as promotional, actually deleting them, or commenting on their promotional nature. My experience over the years is, unfortunately, that if an editor persistently edits in ways which appear to others to be promotional, but who cannot see why, it is usually difficult or impossible to make it clear to them. One can try describing in general terms what the nature of the problem is, as I did on Bida's talk page, particularly in the passage beginning "A large proportion of the pages you have created...", but usually, as in this case, the editor doesn't see what the point is. An alternative is to give specific examples of promotional text to illustrate the point, but often the problem is the whole tone and character of the writing, not specific examples of wording which one can point to. Nevertheless, here are a few examples of writing that Bida posted, which are really not written from a neutral point of view. "His efforts to bring peace back to the area also can't be ignored", "Yakani is experienced and has in-depth knowledge", "Gideon Sarpong is also an excellent writer", "He produces cutting-edge innovative work in a way that promotes opportunities for personal professional growth", and so on.
2. When I moved, reluctantly, from trying to support Bida and help him to avoid being blocked to deciding to block him, I said that I had extended an assumption of good faith, but had now seen proof that Bida Thomas had not been acting totally in good faith. It is unfortunate that you have posted your request for me to unblock him after 9 months, because I don't remember now exactly what I had seen that led me to that conclusion. The one thing which I do know of where he had been less than totally forthcoming, was a discussion where another editor referred to him as a journalist, to which he replied that he wasn't a journalist, despite the fact that he was. However, that there was certainly more to it than just that minor detail, probably related to his denials that he has a "conflict of interest" in the sense of the Wikipedia policy on that. If he wishes to be unblocked he needs to be totally open about his connection to the subjects he has written about, and to correct any inaccurate statements he has made in the past.
3. Six of the pages created by Bida were nominated for deletion by 10mmsocket and then deleted by Jimfbleak. Both 10mmsocket and Jimfbleak stated that part of the reason for deletion was speedy deletion criterion G5, which is to say creation by a banned or blocked user evading their ban or block. I have been unable to find what ban or block they think Bida was evading. Unfortunately 10mmsocket has not edited for more than three months, so it may not be possible to consult him, but Jimfbleak is still very much active, so, despite the long time that has passed, perhaps he can try to clarify the situation. I would certainly wish to see that matter clarified before considering unblocking. JBW (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for ping. Whatever reason I had for G5 at the time I can't recall now, and it may have been an erroneous assumption. I'm happy for you to take any action you think appropriate and in the interest of fairness assume that the G5 was incorrect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Jimfbleak. I shall, as you suggest, ignore the G5, and assume it was a mistake. Lomoraronald, that just means that Bida Thomas needs to demonstrate an understanding of the reasons for the block, and indicate that he will not make the same mistakes again. I will copy this conversation to his talk page. JBW (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply