User talk:Repsjared

This is Repsjared's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aftershock PC (March 9)

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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aftershock PC has been accepted

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]

Your thread has been archived

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]

April 2025

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]

Ways to improve Mann Robinson

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]

Your thread has been archived

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]

The Ugly (2025 film) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Ugly (2025 film). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 23:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Repsjared (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Florian Dagoury in a Youtube video.png

Thanks for uploading File:Florian Dagoury in a Youtube video.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Tales moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Parallel Tales. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because the film has not entered production. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. BOVINEBOY2008 10:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Robinson moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Mann Robinson. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Halla moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Natalie Halla. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and I found one acceptable source. Most of the other sources are only passing mentions of the subject and not acceptable for notability. Also, the tone of this article is quite promotional. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the page and agree it should actually be in draft space. Repsjared (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello. Regarding the last ~~three~~ four articles on this talk page, created by you, which have been sent to draft space, you probably need to declare your paid editing for every article that you post to the main space at about the same time that you create the article. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the articles on The Ugly, Parallel Tales, Mann Robinson, and Natalie Halla without any conflict of interest or paid involvement. I appreciate feedbacks and concerns around tone, sourcing, and notability. What I do find unhelpful are assumptions of undeclared paid editing. Thanks Repsjared (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David France

We actually don't want people disambiguated as (this/that/the other thing) with slashes in the title. We pick one thing that represents the occupation the person is most notable for, rather than slashing multiple occupations — so he could be at either "(writer)" or "(filmmaker)", but not at "(writer/filmmaker)". It's also preferred, if you think a person should be disambiguated differently than they are, to start a requested moves discussion rather than just moving it yourself. So in reality the page should be moved back to "(writer)" for now, and then you can initiate a discussion proposing that it be moved to "(filmmaker)" — but it can't stay at a title with A/B slashing in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat Thanks for explaining this! I appreciate the clarification. I went ahead and made the change without realizing it needed a discussion first. I’ll be more mindful in the future. Repsjared (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat I just noticed the page was reviewed and my changes were accepted by an admin. So your assertions were not entirely right. Nonetheless, thanks for your assistance. Repsjared (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Editors who've been around for a long enough time essentially gain "autoaccepted" privileges, meaning anything they do simply gets automatically tagged as "accepted" without having to be "reviewed" by anybody at all. Only brand-new editors have to have their edits reviewed or accepted, not ones who've been around for longer amounts of time as you have. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat Thanks for explaining that. I don’t mind whether my edits are reviewed manually or not, but I appreciate you taking the time to clarify the distinction. Repsjared (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue. ticket:2025091110006222

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

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

Request reason:

Hello @331dot, I would like to appeal my block. :First, I want to confirm that I have read and understood the Terms of Use and the paid editing disclosure requirements. I will also continue to re-read them from time to time so I can be sure I always understand how to disclose properly. I apologize for not disclosing on some of the articles I worked on in the past. :Specifically, user Gheus was right that I did not disclose paid editing on the following pages: Florian Dagoury, Protozoa Pictures (where I recently made a paid edit), and Prakash Nair. I did disclose on Aftershock PC. For those I did not disclose, I was compensated in cash by the respective clients. In the case of Prakash Nair, after the paid arrangement ended, I still took great interest in the page because I felt it was being vandalized, but I understand that does not excuse the lack of disclosure. I also want to be clear that all three were clients, and I should have disclosed that fact. :I also want to address some other names that were raised. I did not have any COI or paid connection with Parallel Tales, The Ugly, or Natalie Halla whatsoever. For Natalie Halla, I created her page after learning about her film, which I even created a page for, and I wanted to contribute about her in good faith. When the page was moved to drafts, I even considered deleting it, but I decided against that once I realized I could edit it in line with policy. Some information suggested by AI slipped through and came across as promotional, which I overlooked. I re-edited the page myself with more neutral terms based on my own knowledge. For Maine Robinson, I did have a personal connection which was suppose to lead to payment, but I was not paid at all for that work. Once his draft was rejected, I deleted it myself. :In addition, I want to disclose that I was also paid to work on Mustafa Seven’s article. While I personally respect his work and have followed him for a long time, this was in fact a paid arrangement, and I should have disclosed it as such. :I also want to note that at one point I deleted a page for a film I was directly involved in, because I recognized that it was a conflict of interest. I initially had been editing with a company email, but I stopped and switched to my own personal account and email so I could edit properly. More recently, I was given access to the Wikipedia Library, which I've really appreciated. :Going forward, I will always disclose any COI or paid arrangement. I will make those disclosures on my talk page, and if I want to propose edits for a COI subject, I will post them on the article talk page instead of editing directly. I am still learning the best way to handle disclosures, but I will make sure everything is transparent in the future. :I genuinely enjoy editing Wikipedia articles, especially about film, filmmakers, and film companies. I have many drafts in progress just for fun, as it has become a hobby I really value. I want to keep contributing in a way that respects Wikipedia's rules and spirit. :Thank you for considering this appeal. Repsjared (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I fixed some formatting issues that were introduced by using the "reply" function to edit this page; the reply function does not accomodate unblock requests well. It's usually best to edit this page by clicking "edit" at the top or in the section header, and not "reply"(which is imperfect and doesn't work well in all situations, which is only learned through experience).

Someone else will review your request; due to it being a COIVRT block that is a limited number of people(checkusers and the other three COIVRT appointees). It may be quicker for you to appeal to the Arbitration Committee; but you may wait for a review here. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. Repsjared (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Michael Repsch

Hello Repsjared, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Michael Repsch, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Repsch.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Wasianpower}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasianpower Thank you for bringing this to my attention. At the moment I am blocked, so I am not fully sure what options I have in terms of responding or improving the article. I also noticed that a paid editing tag was placed on the page, and I have not done any paid editing, so it is a bit frustrating to see that assumption made. I accept that the AfD process will decide whether the article is kept or deleted, and respect whatever consensus is reached. Repsjared (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Repsjared, I see your previous unblock request was procedurally declined. You're welcome to open a new one if you wish. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]