Hello, I'm
MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
MrOllie (
talk) 15:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Your recent article submission to
Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 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
User:Petjayso/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
may be deleted.
Hello, Petjayso!
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) 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Your recent article submission to
Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject
qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published,
reliable,
secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the
guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see
technical help and learn about
mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
lacking in reliable sources
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
User:Petjayso/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
may be deleted.
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.
GoingBatty (
talk) 20:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@GoingBatty I understand, I just met her once and I need to make this article. It's about time someone made one for her!
Petjayso (
talk) 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Your recent article submission to
Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GoingBatty was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject
qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published,
reliable,
secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the
guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see
technical help and learn about
mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
There are no independent sources - see
WP:POLITICIAN.
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:Debbie Critchfield 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.
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added
links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see
Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I was not aware that I did such a thing lol. I was also not aware that there was such a rule on Wikipedia. Thank you for notifying me.
Petjayso (
talk) 01:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Wait a minute. I was not overlinking. There were links for Android and iOS already, but there were so for the Consoles that had Among Us aswell. In the same section. Why remove the links I added when you did not remove the other links? Idk its just not making a whole lot of sense to me.
Petjayso (
talk) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Your recent article submission to
Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing 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:Salva Dut 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.
@
DoubleGrazing Yooo I remember you! Anyway, I kinda expected that. I made it quickly, and I made it at school. I made it because as a class we read a long walk to water so I was excited to learn that Salva was a real person and the book was not fiction! I looked him up on Wikipedia as I am chronically on Wikipedia and I found it was a redirect :/
I made it quickly.and I did not include many citations. Thank you for declining my article so I can make it better :D!
You made a good start. Here are some more sources you can use:
[1],
[2][3]. I also added a citation for the book you mentioned. You might want to add a sentence or two about what Salva actually did. Remember to use your own words, and not copy from the sources. Please let me know if you need help, and keep up the good work! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you! I am on the road to 500 edits. This will help :D
Petjayso (
talk) 17:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Advice
Also said this at the helpdesk. Don't add your own pictures, or address or phone number or social media handles. Internet is not a safe place, and anything you save here becomes public and will stay with you your whole life. Let your older self make those decisions for you. — Usedtobecool☎️ 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
In recognition of your continued improvement as an editor, and you persistence to always learn more and do what's right. Onwards and upwards!
Panini!•🥪 03:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Panini! Thank you! This is my first barn star and I was not expecting this! And, I will admit my edits were *bad* in the beginning, and I have tried to improve. Thank you!
Petjayso (
talk) 03:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Petjayso Don't beat yourself up too much over it!
So were mine, and so were everyone else's.
Panini!•🥪 03:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Panini! If I edited Wikipedia 4 years ago, I would be editing the same things you are.
Petjayso (
talk) 04:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Your user page
Hi Petjayso, I'm
Firefly. You'll likely not be pleased about this but I have
removed some of your edits because they reveal too much
personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at
Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and
Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thank you, and sorry for messing about with your edits!
firefly (
t ·
c ) 14:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok? I guess. I mean, "too much" sounds a bit exaggerated. My age and the state I live in, alright. Thank you for acknowledging it.
Petjayso (
talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
March 2024
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the
userpage of another user may be considered
vandalism. Specifically, your edit to
User:Andrevan may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' user pages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to
Wikipedia:User page for more information on user page etiquette. Thank you. Chris Troutman (
talk) 02:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Chris troutman Ah yes, I see where you are coming from. On his page he said that anyone could put anything (appropriate I assume) in that box. I assumed that the other images were from other users who put them there, but I haven't checked....
Jayson (
talk) 02:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've reverted my reversion of you. It seems Andrevan did invite your editing. That's an unusual thing which is why I reverted you without considering why. Never mind, I guess. Just don't edit anyone else's user pages. Have fun. Chris Troutman (
talk) 02:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Chris troutman Thank you for considering his user page, and defending it against vandals! Thank you for considering my edit quality and thank you for realising his strange user page policy and philosophy! Have a good night-or rest of your day? Time zones are weird.
Jayson (
talk) 02:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply