Bluishebrye

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bluishebrye! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia

If you have questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 18:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: TJ Monterde has been accepted

TJ Monterde, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AstrooKai (Talk) 19:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Shanelle Agustin moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Shanelle Agustin. 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. JTtheOG (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shanelle Agustin (May 7)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

KylieTastic (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bluishebrye! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shanelle Agustin (May 21)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

KylieTastic (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shanelle Agustin (May 25)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

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

KylieTastic (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello, I'm TheArcRev. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Ashley Sarmiento, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! - ArćRèv • talk 14:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@TheArcRev Hi I'm the who created the article and yes I’m sorry that forgot a citation. Im going to edit with a citation I know the living person I edit. Thanks! Bluishebrye (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bluishebrye: You may claim to be the creator, but the article was originally made through a redirect. Several editors tried adding content before, but it didn’t meet notability guidelines and was rejected. I was the one who added reliable information that led to the article being accepted. That’s why I want to make sure any new additions have proper sources to maintain its notability and credibility. - Arćrèv1 • talk 00:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Fandom is not a reliable source because it’s user-generated and not subject to strict editorial oversight. - Arćrèv1 • talk 00:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please avoid using self-published sources like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Wikipedia, or Fandom. These are not considered reliable per sourcing guidelines, especially in biographies of living persons (BLPs). There are plenty of reliable sources available such as GMA Network, ABS-CBN, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, PEP.ph, Daily Tribune, and others. - Arćrèv1 • talk 00:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

SLR! gusto ko lang ilagay ang buong pangalan (niya ni Ashley Sarmiento), distruptive edit na yon? Ang taray mo naman User:Arcrev1! kailangan pa ng source, yung iba ngang article walang source sa kanilang Fullname. FP! gusto mo ikaw na maglagay ng source nasa ig niya nahapin mo don stalk mo don. Bluishebrye (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bluishebye: Adding or changing the full name of a living person on Wikipedia, like in the case of Ashley Sarmiento, requires a reliable and verifiable source, as stated under Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy. Just because other articles may have unsourced names doesn't make it acceptable — that’s not a justification and goes against the principle of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding Instagram, unless it’s from a verified account and the name is clearly shown and publicly used, it does not automatically count as a reliable source under WP:RS or WP:BLPSOURCES. Your approach, including the way you addressed another editor using sarcastic and aggressive language, also violates WP:CIVIL, which expects editors to interact respectfully. Lastly, unsourced additions to full names, especially when reverted and repeatedly re-added, can be seen as disruptive editing, especially when done without proper justification. - Arćrèv1 • talk 02:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Bluishebrye, when you've been blocked, you should be thinking about how to get unblocked, not focusing on attacking other editors. You do realize that you can not edit, right? If you had participated in discussions, this might have been avoidable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - Arćrèv1 • talk 01:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bluishebrye,

Could you please come to ANI and to participate in this discussion? It would benefit from you offering your perspective. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Bluishebrye, your response to the concerns at ANI is a priority. You should stop your work on other pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Editing while logged out and COI editing

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you.

Hello, Bluishebrye. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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), including links or details of reliable sources that support 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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Presumably, this edit was made by you. Note that I'm just using common sense here and haven't use the CheckUser tool. You need to formally follow WP:PAID and WP:COI. If you don't, your account will likely be blocked. Also, I'm a bit unamused by this edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article), Talk, User, Draft, and Draft talk) for a period of 1 week for unaddressed concerns regarding BLP violations, sockpuppetry, and COI editing; communication is required. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Unblocked

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).

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

---

Request reason:

that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 15:02, 16 June 2025 (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.

Are you asserting that your conduct is not connected in any way with the block? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This text is copy-pasted from the top of Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

ಠ⁠﹏⁠ಠ

༎ຶ⁠‿⁠༎ຶ Bluishebrye (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for BLP violations, sockpuppetry, COI editing, and failure to communicate.

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 ~~~~}}.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to add further context regarding this user’s behavior. While already blocked, she mentioned me on her talk page and sent an uncivil message referring to my previous reversion of her unsourced edit to Ashley Sarmiento’s article. She sarcastically questioned whether adding a full name without a source was “disruptive,” and told me to “stalk mo don” on Instagram to find the source myself. This response reinforces the same pattern of dismissing Wikipedia’s sourcing and BLP policies, along with continued incivility even during the block period. I’m sharing this here for transparency and in case it’s relevant to any future review of her conduct. - Arćrèv1 • talk 02:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

unblocked2

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is not happening again. I will make sure I will put properly citation and reliable resources before I make edits. I want to unblocked because I want to create and edit more articles. I recently contribute a articles.I'm sorry for what i have done.🥺🙏🏻

Decline reason:

That covers unsourced edits, but the concerns were: BLP violations, sockpuppetry, COI editing, and failure to communicate. You need to address these concerns as well. PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2025 (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.

Bluishebrye (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Bluishebrye/sandbox 2

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Bluishebrye/sandbox 2 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, 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. Geoffroi 00:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Bluishebrye/sandbox

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Bluishebrye/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, 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. Geoffroi 20:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Shanelle Agustin

Hello, Bluishebrye. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Shanelle Agustin, 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) 11:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)