Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 6)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, Js2112! Having an article 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! Dan arndt (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

September 2020

edit

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Theresa Greenfield (2) (September 14)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your thread has been archived

edit
 

Hi Js2112! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Advice for improving draft article re: notability, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

October 2020

edit
 

Hello Js2112. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Js2112. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Js2112|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. — Blablubbs (talkcontribs) 22:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Blablubbs, I do not have any stake, financial or otherwise, in any page that I have edited on Wikipedia. Nobody has ever offered me any compensation for any Wikipedia activity. I do have an interest in politics, which I assume is the subject of the edits to which you are referring, but I don't believe that should disqualify me from contributing to Wikipedia articles or discussions. Js2112 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reuse of bio

edit

@Js2112: I thought it would be good to mention that I recently reused some work you did at Draft:Theresa Greenfield to give a bio of Greenfield on the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa page. When someone is only notable for one event, coverage of them generally gets consolidated on the page of the event. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply