Dahproman

CS1 error on Restlezz

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Restlezz

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Restlezz 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, such as at Articles for deletion. 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. 47.187.43.246 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Carterson for deletion

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

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Dahproman. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Carterson, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Dahproman. Thank you for your work on Restlezz. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

IMO and edge case regarding wp:notability but I'm marking it as reviewed. Needs more sources that discuss him in depth. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you Dahproman (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Neddie Smith

Hello Dahproman,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Neddie Smith for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Neddie Smith to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Neddie Smith moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Neddie Smith. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because I had already declined it; update and then resubmit for review. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Neddie Smith moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Neddie Smith, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If you move this again, I will absolutely take it to AFD. You need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policy as well as the general notabilities linked to you several times regarding notability requirements. Consider this also a warning to disclose (per the terms of use) your conflict of interest. CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Neddie Smith for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neddie Smith 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/Neddie Smith 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.

CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Good day @Praxidicae I would have said that and attached it to the article I tried to move the page because I felt the article would be accepted anyway because it follows most of the criteria’s required from WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NME that’s why I apologize and Promise to do better. Dahproman (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You should mark the article with {{db-g7}} so that it can be deleted more swiftly, and just allow the draft's review to happen. - r UtherSRG (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neddie Smith (March 18)

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

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Please check the table for national charts that can be used to support notability

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:Neddie Smith 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.

Flat Out (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Neddie Smith

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Neddie Smith 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/Neddie Smith. 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. Annh07 (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Tolex (singer) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Tolex (singer). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. 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. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Tolex (singer)

Hello, Dahproman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tolex (singer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 11:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

1 week block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts - refer to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dahproman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.  PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AI-generated pages

The following pages have been proposed for deletion, as they match an established pattern of AI-generated content:

• Restlezz
• Tomi Folayan
• Tolex (singer)
• King Kaly
• TeeMirror
• Zeeno Foster

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice. In this case, you take responsibility for the content, and the onus is on you to achieve consensus for its inclusion. You must remove or rewrite any generated content, and all content and its sources must be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that it complies with polices and guidelines. This may involve checking that the cited sources support the content and are reliable, determining whether the content is due for inclusion, and rewriting the content in your own words to revise the tone and resolve possible copyright violations.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, and you intend to review and rework it, you may request undeletion of the page at any time. InfernoHues (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Your Email

Dahproman, please don't email me things that can easily be discussed on-wiki. You can copy-paste your email here and I'll reply. InfernoHues (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, i couldn't do so on your talk page because i am , apologies for that @InfernoHues, instead of deletion, let the content that looks ai generated be identified for a removal or rewrite because this articles have already been reviewed before now instead of just deletion lets review, rewrite and remove if ai generated content is found i think thats what the Wikipedia AI cleanup project stands for. here is the full email; Good day InfernoHues,

Hope you are having a great day and weekend, mate.

I noticed that a chunk of articles created by me were nominated for deletion on the suspicion of being AI-generated content. I believe this is an error, as these articles were meticulously written. Take the article for Restlezz, for example; it was written in 2024, and all the sources, references, and citations are from reputable outlets that meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and neutrality. This is why the article was originally approved after the suggested changes were made.

I know you are trying to keep the Wikipedia space safe, but it feels like these nominations are being pushed based purely on suspicion. Please review the articles carefully as actual pieces of writing rather than just labeling them as "AI-generated" at first glance. "AI slop" is usually easy to spot, and it feels like these articles are being unfairly caught in the crossfire.

I ask that you reconsider before pushing for deletion.

Best Regards,

Dahproman Dahproman (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dahproman, did you use AI or LLM's to write that email, or perhaps machine translation?

The problem is that using AI or LLM's to write Wikipedia articles is against the website guidelines. The cost of fixing AI-generated articles may be greater than starting them from scratch, because AI causes too many problems.

That said, blocked editors can only use their Talk page to discuss their block.

Only active, unblocked editors can discuss whether the article should be deleted or not. Blue-Sonnet 00:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

hi @Blue-Sonnet i had emailed @InfernoHues and he asked to copy and paste the email on here, that's the reason i did that. also let me refer you to this: Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models;

1. Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own. Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what is asked of them and can change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited. Examples of basic copyedits include spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
2. Editors are permitted to use LLMs to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia, but must follow the guidance laid out at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation.

The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs. The imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications. When evaluating possible LLM use, it is best to consider the full pattern of the editor's recent edits and whether the edits comply with core content policies.

I think as a community, which Wikipedia is, LLM or AI writing is relatively new. In this case, I think instead of straight-up deleting articles suspected of "AI slop," they should be identified and suggested to the article creator to be fixed. Most new articles on Wikipedia might have a paragraph or two written by an AI or LLM, but if that hurts the Wikipedia space, don't you think it’s better to suggest to these users which parts of the pages look AI-generated and have the appropriate fixes suggested? That’s what I think, in my opinion. Dahproman (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Dahproman, you should see this AI noticeboard case relating to your editing. People there have explained some of the evidence. Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#User:Dahproman InfernoHues (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the AI noticeboard,@InfernoHues but so far it's just for one article, yet they listed all of them. The one in question will be fixed, and the particular paragraph suspected of AI content will be addressed. However, I don't think deletion is the option; I think if there is a suspicion of AI content, a fix should be suggested. Most of the people making those suggestions don't understand that some of the artists are Nigerian, so the sources are different there. Since they have already been reviewed, I believe a fix should be suggested instead. Dahproman (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the two examples listed on the noticeboards were just examples. I think many of the articles I nominated have AI signs. A new guideline recently put into place, WP:LLMPROD, allows for pages to be deleted without review, if the user has a history of AI use.

There has been a suggested fix, in the deletion warning template:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice. In this case, you take responsibility for the content, and the onus is on you to achieve consensus for its inclusion. You must remove or rewrite any generated content, and all content and its sources must be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that it complies with polices and guidelines. This may involve checking that the cited sources support the content and are reliable, determining whether the content is due for inclusion, and rewriting the content in your own words to revise the tone and resolve possible copyright violations.

InfernoHues (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, this explains it. Now that we are moving forward, kindly help identify what you saw as AI content, and I will get that fixed once my block has expired. Also, I take responsibility if anything written by me looks AI-generated, so I will try to fix all of it; however, that can't be done with the articles under deletion. Damn this is relatively new to me, and @InfernoHues you've been so much help, so kindly let me know what next steps needs to be taken. Dahproman (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Once again, see the AI noticeboard link. The same problems pointed out there are present in all the articles I checked. InfernoHues (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

After fixing the issues noted in the notice board, do i remove the Tag from each article? Dahproman (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you should go to the noticeboard post and explain what you will do to fix the issues, so that others can also see. The process to follow is in the quote I gave above. InfernoHues (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know this: "...blocked editors can only use their Talk page to discuss their block." Apologies for bringing it here. Where is that from, I can't find it in the blocking policy page. Also how did you find this page? InfernoHues (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I had this page pinned following the AI/sock/noticeboard thread (can't remember which), I do this if it looks like an editor might need assistance with a future block appeal or further support whilst blocked.

For the relevant guideline, please see Wikipedia:User pages:

"Users who are site-blocked or site-banned should rarely use their talk pages for anything other than unblock requests or conversation leading toward such a request." Blue-Sonnet 01:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

That was why i emailed, but on the request of @InfernoHues i had to paste the email on here but this has been duly noted but personally i do think this falls under the "rarely use" tho isn't it. Dahproman (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It's tricky, but the general idea is that blocked editors aren't able to edit Wikipedia so don't have a say in how it works or what happens to articles. It's also intended to stop Talk pages from derailing into further disputes & make things easier for admins who might need to review future appeals.

The tricky part comes with timed bans. Ideally, the editor should wait until the ban expires, then discuss the relevant article on its own Talk or discussion page when they return. It can also be confusing to have discussions about specific articles in several different places at once. Blue-Sonnet 01:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

There's also the risk that this could be seen as proxy editing - influencing another editor to edit a certain way.

Can I explicitly ask, are you/have you been using AI, LLM, chatbot or machine translators to edit Wikipedia?

Looking through the discussion, I don't think that you've confirmed or denied using it (apologies if I've missed it). Blue-Sonnet 01:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No @Blue-Sonnet i have not. all i see in those discussions are suspicions which i will try to fix individually. Dahproman (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for confirming, with this sort of thing is best to be as clear as possible from the beginning. Blue-Sonnet 14:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You didn't do this: "You must remove or rewrite any generated content, and all content and its sources must be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that it complies with polices and guidelines. This may involve checking that the cited sources support the content and are reliable, determining whether the content is due for inclusion, and rewriting the content in your own words to revise the tone and resolve possible copyright violations." You just removed the deletion tags. InfernoHues (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dahproman Please don't remove deletion tags from articles, especially if you haven't addressed any of the issues. Blue-Sonnet 05:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

"Carterson" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Carterson has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 12 § Carterson until a consensus is reached. InfernoHues (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Zeeno foster

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

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Dahproman. Thank you for your work on Zeeno Foster. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please fix the many citation errors. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Zeeno Foster

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

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Teemirror

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Teemirror, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Kqol • talk 00:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (2nd request)

@Dahproman You've been asked in 2024 whether you have a conflict of interest in the past, yet you never answered.
You've been creating a lot of rather promotional articles for several musicians so I'd like to ask again:

• Do you have any prior relationship with the people you are creating articles for?

• For example, do you or your employer work with/for these artists?

I'm also disappointed to see that you didn't follow my recommendation to use the WP:AFC process for new articles after our earlier discussion. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 01:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Will second this. Some of the articles look exactly the same as they were before deletion (e.g. Restlezz). Would you be open to draftifying the articles and sending them through AfC? InfernoHues (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If they don't respond we may need to take this to WP:COIN, @Dahproman is fully aware of this Talk page and has used it before - I'm concerned that they're not responding yet continuing to edit. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:08, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Blue-Sonnet: @InfernoHues. I only saw this message today, as I did not receive a notification earlier, and I apologize for the delay.

Regarding the concerns raised:

No Conflict of Interest: I want to clarify that I have absolutely no conflict of interest (COI) or personal connection to these subjects. I write purely as a music enthusiast interested in documenting notable artists who chart on TurnTable Charts or align with guidelines under WikiProject Nigeria.

WP:LLM and AI Writing Signs: As I mentioned on the AI noticeboard, the WP:LLM guideline was new to me. I have since been thoroughly studying WP:AISIGNS to understand community standards. I am actively reviewing and rewriting my drafts to ensure they are written entirely in my own words, are free of AI styling, and maintain a strictly neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Promotional Concerns: I am careful to avoid promotional content and am stripping out any subjective language to ensure strict compliance with WP:NPOV.

I am fully committed to bringing these articles to 100% Wikipedia standards and would appreciate any constructive feedback on the rewritten versions. Dahproman (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated all the articles for WP:LLMPROD again as I've received confirmation from an admin that the page recreations are almost identical to the originally deleted ones. InfernoHues (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I also noticed that the images in Restlezz and Teemirror are marked as "own work." Did you take these pictures? InfernoHues (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AI-generated pages

The following pages have been proposed for deletion, as they match an established pattern of AI-generated content:

{{subst:#if: Restlezz|

{{subst:#invoke:For nowiki|template|

|* [[{{{1}}}]]}}

|}}

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Prod llm/dated}} notice. In this case, you take responsibility for the content, and the onus is on you to achieve consensus for its inclusion. You must remove or rewrite any generated content, and all content and its sources must be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that it complies with polices and guidelines. This may involve checking that the cited sources support the content and are reliable, determining whether the content is due for inclusion, and rewriting the content in your own words to revise the tone and resolve possible copyright violations.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, and you intend to review and rework it, you may request undeletion of the page at any time. InfernoHues (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's kindly do it right this time.

Moved from User talk:InfernoHues § Let's kindly do it right this time.

 – InfernoHues (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues, I am asking for something simple: what specific parts of this article support your claim that it contains a pattern of AI-generated content? You cannot propose deletion without identifying the specific text you suspect as AI-generated. For example, the article Restlezz was reviewed yesterday, and there was no mention of AI-generated content because I ensured that I followed WP:LLMPROD. According to all the relevant guidelines, instead of resolving this by deleting the entry, why not show me the parts you feel are AI-generated? I am happy to fix them, or you could move the article to the draft space. Deleting based purely on suspicion is not fair. Dahproman (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As you were told last time, please see WP:LLMPRVOBJ.

" You cannot propose deletion without identifying the specific text you suspect as AI-generated." - Yes I can. The entire point of WP:LLMPROD is that each individual article does not need to be reviewed, and that a person known for using LLMs in some articles is presumed to have used LLMs in all of their articles. The fact that it was reviewed is irrelevant, as a new page review does not check for LLM usage. The admin who deletes after the five day period stipulated by WP:LLMPROD will check that the deletion tag was placed validly. InfernoHues (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Your replies here also read very closely to AI-generated comments and contain many signifiers of AI-generation. I think you are still using AI/LLM's and aren't writing these comments or articles yourself. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dahproman. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

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.

In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

---

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. Admins lifting or loosening such blocks without appropriate authorization may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi asilvering and reviewing admins. I am requesting an unblock regarding the indefinite block for undisclosed paid advocacy. First, I want to confirm that I have read and understand the Terms of Use and the paid editing disclosure requirements. I want to state clearly and honestly: I am not being compensated in any way by any person, company, or organization for my edits on Wikipedia. I also have no personal, professional, or financial affiliation with the subjects I have written about (Restlezz, Zeeno Foster, Tomi Folayan, etc.). I am simply a passionate fan of these artists and the music industry, and I wanted to see them represented on Wikipedia. However, looking back at my edits and the recent investigations, I now realize that my enthusiasm caused my writing to be overly promotional. Because I was trying so hard to prove their notability, I failed to maintain a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), which made my edits look like PR work. Moving forward, I will completely drop the promotional tone. I will strictly adhere to NPOV, rely only on what independent reliable sources say, and I will avoid editing in areas where my fandom makes it difficult for me to remain neutral. I apologize for the time this has taken up, and I ask for a second chance to contribute neutrally. Dahproman (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not match the evidence presented. Your connection to Search Alpha has poisoned your work here, as you should have expected. Yamla (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi @Yamla: and reviewing admins.

I want to address your comment about Search Alpha directly, because I think there has been a misunderstanding that I genuinely want to clear up.

I was a consultant for Search Alpha, but my role was purely technical. I was helping them integrate the MediaWiki API with Google services. I am a technical person, not a PR writer, and that project did not even work out in the end.

I understand how that connection looks from the outside, and I accept that I should have disclosed it from the very beginning regardless of what my actual role was. That was a serious mistake on my part and I own it completely.

What I can tell you honestly is that I came to Wikipedia with no proper understanding of how strict the COI and paid editing rules are. I was writing articles about artists I genuinely follow because I wanted them represented here. I did not approach it the way a PR agent would, but I also did not approach it the way a responsible Wikipedia editor should, and I understand that now.

If I am unblocked, every single article I create will go through WP:AFC so that independent editors can review them before anything goes live. I will also immediately place a full COI disclosure on my user page. I am not asking to go back to editing the way I was before. I just want a structured, supervised path to contribute properly. Dahproman (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is slightly closer to the evidence presented in that you admit working for Search Alpha after denying it before, but still not a match in my opinion. Even if you were fully honest, there is no pathway forward for you to, in the near future at least, continue to edit about musicians/artists, so we would need to know what you will edit about instead. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi @331dot:, thank you for responding.

I want to address one thing respectfully: I did not deny working with Search Alpha. I stated it in the Administrators' noticeboard discussion. I understand that record may no longer be easily accessible, but I want it on record that I never hid that connection.

Regarding Search Alpha, my role was technical. I am a developer. What drew me to the MediaWiki API was not reputation management. It was the realization that Wikipedia sits on one of the largest collections of human knowledge ever assembled, and most people outside of direct Wikipedia users cannot easily access it in structured ways. My interest was in building something that makes that knowledge more reachable to everyday people, the way a public library makes books accessible to everyone regardless of background. That is genuinely how I think about information.

I understand how that sounds given the company I was consulting for, and I accept that my failure to disclose the nature of what we were building early enough created a legitimate trust problem. That is on me, but i never denied anything to the best of my knowledge.

To your question about what I would edit instead, I would focus on using WP:AFC for every new article and placing a full COI disclosure on my user page permanently if that's what it takes

I am just asking for a fair path forward. Dahproman (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declining based on a bunch of weaselling around technicalities. Please be straightforward and honest. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

You said in your first request "I want to state clearly and honestly: I am not being compensated in any way by any person, company, or organization for my edits on Wikipedia. I also have no personal, professional, or financial affiliation with the subjects I have written about (Restlezz, Zeeno Foster, Tomi Folayan, etc.)"; a contractor versus an employee is a distinction without a difference as far as we're concerned, if I believe you. You had an AI say for you at AN that " I am not an employee of Search Alpha. I briefly collaborated with them on a now-abandoned project aimed at helping SaaS tools utilize the MediaWiki API."; the private evidence suggests your connection is stronger than this. I'm still quite comfortable with my decline. Someone else will review your request(though it must be a checkuser or someone with access to the evidence). 331dot (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @331dot:, I want to respectfully clarify something.

In my first appeal I said I had no affiliation with the subjects I wrote about, meaning the artists themselves. Restlezz, Zeeno Foster, Tomi Folayan. That statement was true. I have no personal, financial, or professional relationship with any of them.

Search Alpha is a separate matter. My connection there was a short technical consulting role involving the MediaWiki API. Search Alpha is not one of the subjects I wrote about, so I do not believe those two statements actually contradict each other.

I understand there is private evidence being referenced, and I respect that I cannot see it. I am genuinely asking the reviewing CheckUser to look at whether that evidence actually connects me to those specific artists, or just to Search Alpha generally. Those are two different things and I think that distinction matters here. If there is private evidence that shows a stronger connection, I would sincerely like to understand what it is, because I cannot address something I do not have visibility into. Dahproman (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, the evidence connects you to specific artists, through your work at Search Alpha. Unless what you're saying is that, for reasons completely unrelated to your work at Search Alpha, you just happened to create Wikipedia articles for clients of Search Alpha? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hi @Significa liberdade:, you asked me to be honest, so here is the full truth with nothing hidden.

The Restlezz article was my very first Wikipedia article. I wrote it because I fell in love with his music, and I was genuinely proud of his work. He had orchestrated andcollaborated with Yo Gotti, one of Utah's most recognised artists at the time, which is why I believed he met notability standards. That article existed and was reviewed for main space, before Search Alpha was even involved in his career. You can verify this by checking the timestamps on the article's creation against when Search Alpha became affiliated with him.

Here is what I should have said from the beginning: I am the one who introduced Restlezz to Search Alpha, not the other way around. Search Alpha did not hire me to write his Wikipedia page. I wrote it myself, spent hours on it, because he was someone I genuinely believed deserved to be here. After I made that introduction and he became part of their roster, yes, I continued to update the article. I know that was wrong because by that point I had a clear conflict of interest and should have stopped. I own that completely.

As for the other artists, Zeeno Foster and Tomi Folayan, there is no Search Alpha connection there at all. I followed their music, and I wrote about them because they had verifiable notability through awards and being featured on Turntable, amongst other things. That was my basis, not any commercial interest.

I am not trying to hide behind anything anymore. I hurt my home and I know that. I am asking for one supervised chance to come back, only through WP:AFC, with full COI disclosures in place. I will not let anyone down. Dahproman (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hi <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade]]:</span>, you asked me to be honest, so here is the full truth with nothing hidden. The Restlezz article was my very first Wikipedia article. I wrote it because I fell in love with his music, and I was genuinely proud of his work. He had orchestrated andcollaborated with Yo Gotti, one of Utah's most recognised artists at the time, which is why I believed he met notability standards. That article existed and was reviewed for main space, before Search Alpha was even involved in his career. You can verify this by checking the timestamps on the article's creation against when Search Alpha became affiliated with him. Here is what I should have said from the beginning: I am the one who introduced Restlezz to Search Alpha, not the other way around. Search Alpha did not hire me to write his Wikipedia page. I wrote it myself, spent hours on it, because he was someone I genuinely believed deserved to be here. After I made that introduction and he became part of their roster, yes, I continued to update the article. I know that was wrong because by that point I had a clear conflict of interest and should have stopped. I own that completely. As for the other artists, Zeeno Foster and Tomi Folayan, there is no Search Alpha connection there at all. I followed their music, and I wrote about them because they had verifiable notability through awards and being featured on Turntable, amongst other things. That was my basis, not any commercial interest. I am not trying to hide behind anything anymore. I hurt my home and I know that. I am asking for one supervised chance to come back, only through WP:AFC, with full COI disclosures in place. I will not let anyone down. [[User:Dahproman|Dahproman]] ([[User talk:Dahproman#top|talk]]) 18:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade]]:</span>, you asked me to be honest, so here is the full truth with nothing hidden. The Restlezz article was my very first Wikipedia article. I wrote it because I fell in love with his music, and I was genuinely proud of his work. He had orchestrated andcollaborated with Yo Gotti, one of Utah's most recognised artists at the time, which is why I believed he met notability standards. That article existed and was reviewed for main space, before Search Alpha was even involved in his career. You can verify this by checking the timestamps on the article's creation against when Search Alpha became affiliated with him. Here is what I should have said from the beginning: I am the one who introduced Restlezz to Search Alpha, not the other way around. Search Alpha did not hire me to write his Wikipedia page. I wrote it myself, spent hours on it, because he was someone I genuinely believed deserved to be here. After I made that introduction and he became part of their roster, yes, I continued to update the article. I know that was wrong because by that point I had a clear conflict of interest and should have stopped. I own that completely. As for the other artists, Zeeno Foster and Tomi Folayan, there is no Search Alpha connection there at all. I followed their music, and I wrote about them because they had verifiable notability through awards and being featured on Turntable, amongst other things. That was my basis, not any commercial interest. I am not trying to hide behind anything anymore. I hurt my home and I know that. I am asking for one supervised chance to come back, only through WP:AFC, with full COI disclosures in place. I will not let anyone down. [[User:Dahproman|Dahproman]] ([[User talk:Dahproman#top|talk]]) 18:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade]]:</span>, you asked me to be honest, so here is the full truth with nothing hidden. The Restlezz article was my very first Wikipedia article. I wrote it because I fell in love with his music, and I was genuinely proud of his work. He had orchestrated andcollaborated with Yo Gotti, one of Utah's most recognised artists at the time, which is why I believed he met notability standards. That article existed and was reviewed for main space, before Search Alpha was even involved in his career. You can verify this by checking the timestamps on the article's creation against when Search Alpha became affiliated with him. Here is what I should have said from the beginning: I am the one who introduced Restlezz to Search Alpha, not the other way around. Search Alpha did not hire me to write his Wikipedia page. I wrote it myself, spent hours on it, because he was someone I genuinely believed deserved to be here. After I made that introduction and he became part of their roster, yes, I continued to update the article. I know that was wrong because by that point I had a clear conflict of interest and should have stopped. I own that completely. As for the other artists, Zeeno Foster and Tomi Folayan, there is no Search Alpha connection there at all. I followed their music, and I wrote about them because they had verifiable notability through awards and being featured on Turntable, amongst other things. That was my basis, not any commercial interest. I am not trying to hide behind anything anymore. I hurt my home and I know that. I am asking for one supervised chance to come back, only through WP:AFC, with full COI disclosures in place. I will not let anyone down. [[User:Dahproman|Dahproman]] ([[User talk:Dahproman#top|talk]]) 18:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}