User talk:Maddydogblues

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

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

AfC notification: Draft:Brynne Kennedy has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Brynne Kennedy. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Hello Maddydogblues. 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:Maddydogblues. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Maddydogblues|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. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for reaching out. We are not paid contributors, however. This is a collaborative, ongoing social media assignment for an adult education class. Thanks again! Maddydogblues (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care to write in a neutral fashion (see WP:NPOV). Promotional language such as what companies typically use to describe themselves is not how Wikipedia should be written. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please restore the reversed edits. We are not writing this article, simply editing and updating outdated information, such as founding dates, spelling errors, and key people, which are now inaccurate because of the reversal. Thanks in advance. Maddydogblues (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not restore promotional edits. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits are "promotional"? The founding date is now incorrect. The spelling of the company is now incorrect. Key people who are no longer with the company and new people who are with the company are now gone. The company's new locations are now incorrect. Are these promotional edits?? Maddydogblues (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More or less all of your writing is promotional, both on TuneCore and on the drafts you've been working on. Wikipedia must be written in neutral language - it should not sound like an advertisement or a brochure. MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we did not write this article. We simply made updates to basic factual information. Not sure why you're being so militant here. We're being instructed by a long-time wikipedian who did much of the writing on other articles for education purposes. If this article is promotional, shouldn't it be an issue with the original author/s? Spelling the company name correctly (TuneCore, not Tunecore) does not seem very promotional yet you claim "all of your writing." That's not even writing, it's standard editing. Maddydogblues (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is with the changes you made, which were promotionally worded. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you keep saying 'we'. Please be advised that shared accounts are not allowed per Wikipedia policy and are commonly blocked when discovered. Every account should be associated with an individual person. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of odd considering that students around the world use Wikipedia as practice for editing, citation research, and basic social media skills learning in classroom settings. Maddydogblues (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But the vast majority of changes are clearly not promotional, such as dates and names that were already in the article but outdated. Why are you refusing to restore those edits? Maddydogblues (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, office locations and CEO's are considered promotional material? If so, I was not aware of that and offer my humblest apologies. Again, what I've added so far today has been primarily spelling and publicly available factual company information. I do not understand why you're being antagonistic and threatening. Nothing I'm doing is meant to promote a company I know very little about, nor really care about. Maddydogblues (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you're doing. Pasting in promotional text about product offerings is what you are doing, and listing nonnotable 'awards'. Wikipedia isn't a place to repeat press releases or press-release churnalism. Kindly stop. MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely and demonstrably what I'm doing. You deleted that material originally with all other edits that had absolutely nothing to do with so-called "churnalism". In my initial edit I added two entries from highly reputable sources (not press releases) on innovation and workplace conditions, drawing on countless other Wikipedia articles as a guide. Fine, you didn't approve of those and they were NOT included in the second attempt at contributing. So now you're chastising me for something that did not happen. Why? Again, are office locations and CEO information considered promotional material? Maddydogblues (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brynne Kennedy (July 8)[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 Greenman were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All statements need sourcing - there are numerous unsourced statements, such as the entire personal section. Also promotional in tone.

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:Brynne Kennedy 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.

Greenman (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maddydogblues! 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! Greenman (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jay Reale (September 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Jay Reale may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jay Reale (September 17)[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 Chetsford 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:

Potentially notable, however, references are either not WP:RS (e.g. Instagram, surfing.la) or contain merely incidental references to subject.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jay Reale 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.

Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brynne Kennedy (October 31)[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 Novo Tape was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Phrases like "leading thought leader" are promotional. The list "Board of Directors of Caban Systems ... and Task Human" needs a source/sources (see our rules on requiring sourcing for potentially contentious statements about living persons).

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:Brynne Kennedy 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.

Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brynne Kennedy (November 9)[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 WikiOriginal-9 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 is not enough independent, significant coverage here to support a Wikipedia article. Interviews are not fully independent.

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:Brynne Kennedy 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brynne Kennedy (November 30)[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 BuySomeApples were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:

I'm still not sure this meets WP:NPOL, but it definitely needs to be rewritten and any unreliable / primary sources removed.

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:Brynne Kennedy 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karen Gale has been accepted[edit]

Karen Gale, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

<RetroCraft314 /> 20:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Does this mean the article has been approved? It does not have a "draft" label attached to it, which is why I ask. Thanks again. Maddydogblues (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jay Reale[edit]

Hello, Maddydogblues. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jay Reale, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 21:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jay Reale[edit]

Hello, Maddydogblues. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jay Reale".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]