User talk:JoinFluffy250

This is JoinFluffy250'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marian Bocek (October 13)[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 Celestina007 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marian Bocek and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marian Bocek, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoinFluffy250! 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! Celestina007 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Marian Bocek[edit]

Hello, JoinFluffy250. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marian Bocek, 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) 03:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Marian Bocek[edit]

Hello, JoinFluffy250. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Marian Bocek".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 18:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, JoinFluffy250. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Andy Palmer, 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 organizations 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 {{request edit}} template);
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. Edwardx (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Emirali moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Leon Emirali, is not suitable as written to remain published. It appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. 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, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Onel5969. This is helpful. Not paid by the individual, nor is there a conflict of interest. Just finding my way through and this is my first page creation - start small and work my way up :) will make some edits and see where it goes. Not deterred from creating my first page! :) JoinFluffy250 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obvious you have a connection to the subject. Could you please explain that? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969. There isn't a connection. I saw the subject on British television and decided to take them on as my first page creation after doing multiple edits of people in business and politics elsewhere on Wikipedia. Personal details found via Companies House (DOB etc), all else sourced via Google and news searches. If this person isn't notable or if you think it doesn't work, happy to take on another subject (I wanted my first page creation to be fairly low-traffic so I can work on it regularly). Keen to get it right. What do you think? Is there a specific reason you think a COI is obvious? I'd be happy to explain if you let me know specific reasons. Thanks very much. Grateful for feedback, as ever. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leon Emirali (February 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 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:

press releases are not reliable or 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:Leon Emirali 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theroadislong thanks for reviewing. Keen to get better at editing, so would be grateful for your response. Which press releases were used? I made sure all my sources were independent from reputable news sources. Do you mean the articles/op-eds that were written by the subject? (e.g the ones in The Times, City AM etc) JoinFluffy250 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly content that he himself wrote is not independent, but www.prweek.com uses press releases too. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks - yes makes sense. Will make some edits. Appreciate you replying. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong, though I don't think PR Week do publish press releases. I think you are referring PR Newswirem which do. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

their website says "PRWeek epitomises the modern business publishing brand, spanning online, print, events, and social media, incorporating a paid-for content strategy and gated website." People pay to have their content on there it is not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong, Most publications take paid-for content by way of advertorials? They are usually clearly marked, the article I included in this article has a named journalist in its byline. Regardless, I will defer to your judgement as the more experienced editor and find another source. Thanks very much. :) JoinFluffy250 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-time UK-based PR practitioner, I can confirm that PR Week has a good reputation for clearly separating paid-for content and journalist-written editorial (I have even featured in its editorial and opinion pages myself once or twice). Like most news-based periodicals in every walk of life, its journalists will occasionally use content from press releases; at a PR industry event, I heard a past PR Week editor say they get 100s of releases weekly from which they select only a limited number based on what they judge genuinely newsworthy.

I have made some further edits to the article (adding Wikilinks, and a couple of new sources). From reviewing lots of new articles (I am a New Page Patroller), I think Emirali is borderline notable, but it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Paul W (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. That's helpful - and thanks very much for improving my attempts at a first page! I guess I'll leave it up to a new page reviewer to judge on notability, but as you say, it does feel like there is a level of notability there. Let's see... thanks again. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it back into the AfC queue will bring it to the attention of other editors soon(ish). If you want to reinvolve Theroadislong you could ping him. Paul W (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cinch (company) (August 12)[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 Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Constellation Automotive Group instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft appears to cover the same business as the article. If so, the content can be merged.

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:Cinch (company) 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. Thanks for reviewing my new page (Draft:Cinch (company)).

Your rejection for it being a duplicate of Constellation Automotive Group (Constellation Automotive Group) is not accurate.

The new page I've submitted is for a subsidiary of that company. You will see on the Constellation Automotive Group page that its subsidaries do have separate articles. It is not the same content.

I am minded to re-submit the article as is, unless you suggest otherwise?

Thanks JoinFluffy250 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constellation Automotive Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinch. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cinch (company) (August 21)[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 Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Cinch (company) instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

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:Cinch (company) 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]