A tag has been placed on Robert L. Norton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Norton. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969:. This subject is the same as the deleted one recently. While preparing a draft for this subject, that old page was still active. The next thing I knew, it was deleted. I should have responded, but I waited to finish my draft, so I have something to update when it is ready. Too late, it was deleted right before I could finish this. I believe this page should not be deleted because:

1) The original one was short while this one is more detailed as I tried to improve the page by doing extensive Google research. 2) This page is published in Wikipedia standards to the best of my ability, unlike the previous one when it was messed up. 3) I added more references, though some of them may need to be deemed reliable, which I am still working on it to fix. 4) I am doing my best to improve the page.

I know this page still has multiple issues, but I am working on it again. Although @ONUnicorn: mentioned that this is not substantially identical to the deleted version since it is considerably longer and better sourced, the fact that I can still see this note here feels like the page will be deleted soon. I do hope you won't. Thank you.Bmjc98 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a paid contributor, you must go through AfC whenever you create an article. In addition, when an article is in mainspace, you should never edit directly yourself, but request changes to be made on the article's talk page. I've moved two back into draft. I had reviewed the other two and did not find any issues with them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Moving them to draft is better than getting blocked or pages being deleted. Moving forward, I will create every paid page under AfC. Question, since the two are now back to drafts, can I still create them again? I will make sure to submit a request once I need to edit the pages. And will I need to leave a message on top that this page is done by a paid editor? Something like that. Sorry, although this account has been around for 3 years, I have just recently started again. The one I did back in the day was also deleted and after that page, I stopped editing. Another thing, I am also planning to write a page for someone who is famous in crypto-space. This is not a paid page and no, there's no COI involved. He is just a famous guy in crypto and when I checked on Wikipedia, there was nothing about him. Thank you.Bmjc98 (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no need to recreate the pages, they exist as drafts. You've placed the requisite template on your talk page, so that suffices to fulfill the requirement. When you feel they are ready to be reviewed, simply hit the submit button. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I thought the draft was deleted or something, but I get it now. Thank you. I already submitted them for review and just waiting for an editor to check on them. Anyway, thank you again. Bmjc98 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. you are legally obligated to disclose if you have a conflict of interest. If we discover you are editing for pay or are employed by the subject of your articles you could be blocked indefinitely. This community of underpaid over-educated volunteers take a dim view of people with money getting involved on our hobbyist website. If you have questions about how to properly disclose, please ask. I, myself, have edited for pay or other renumeration before as my userpage indicates. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've just read this post. My apologies. Okay. For the sake of my account, how or where should I properly disclose COI? Again, my apologies. Bmjc98 (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have disclosed it under my user's page. Please see if I did it correctly. Thank you.Bmjc98 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bmjc98, please state whether you are associated with Nomaan Sheikh or his companies as you have made significant edits to Draft:Nomaan Sheikh and uploaded pictures. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AngusWOOF, yes, I am associated with him. I was paid to write a draft for him. Sorry, I haven't updated my talk page, though.

I do have a question. When paid editors create a page, does this decrease the perceived legitimacy of the page? Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bmjc98, paid editors have to disclose anyway, but it's more the content and references of the article that determines whether it is legit. If it's based off of the subject's websites, promotional content and press releases, and has a lot of promotional verbiage, then yes, that reduces legitimacy. See if you can rewrite the article without any knowledge of the subject's website or press provided. If external news articles, not associated with the subject or business as an associate or rival, give the subject/business significant coverage in their writeups, then that will help. There are words to avoid as per WP:IBA and WP:PEACOCK, and if the subject has stuff they don't want to disclose but it's public information anyway, then they have to realize that it will be in the article per WP:PROUD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this. Helps a lot. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by UtherSRG were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Addmotor 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

UtherSRG (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UtherSRG! Thank you for the feedback. This is regarding the Draft:Addmotor. It says that the draft was declined due to the need of in-depth, reliable, secondary sources. So as I browsed Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I read that we can find reliable sources on news, newspapers, books, scholars, JSTOR. When I clicked the news, I got directed to Google news, where I searched Addmotor. Then I saw a bunch of results for Addmotor. Does it mean that these results are reliable sources? Please advise. Thank you.Bmjc98 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:RS/P to see how some sources are reliable and others are not. Also, the source must be all three: reliable, independent, and secondary. Further, the source must provide in-depth coverage. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UtherSRG! I have edited the draft and removed sources that are unreliable based at WP:RS/P. Please review and advise. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmjc98! 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! UtherSRG (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Compusolus were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:Addmotor 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Compusolus (talk) 01:44, 30 January 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 Chris troutman 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:

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. No amount of presswire PR pieces and churnalism your client buys will make this subject notable. Please wait until this subject dies as obituaries help some people over the GNG line.

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:Robert L. Norton 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Addmotor. Thanks! UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Thank you. Will definitely read on it. Bmjc98 (talk) 12:58, 30 January 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 Akevsharma 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:Nomaan Sheikh 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Akevsharma (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for disclosing your paid editing. Looking at the disclosure on your user page, it says that you edited Edcel Greco Lagman while receiving payment "by someone associated with the subject". Same thing for Draft:Addmotor and Draft:Institute of Project Management.

Unfortunately, that is not quite enough. Per WP:PAID, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Meaning_of_"employer,_client,_and_affiliation" for the details, but it means you must disclose the person or company who paid you (employer). "Someone associated with the subject" is not sufficient. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean I have to mention the full name? Can I just say the name and no last time to protect the identity of the client? I will update it later. Is it okay if I just do the disclosure on my user's page? Anyway, thank you for letting me know. Bmjc98 (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure is the point, so yes, you need to mention the name to the usual extent (in Western culture, that would be first name + last name). Doing it on your userpage is OK.

You need to disclose both employer and client (those might be the same if you work freelance).

The client is whoever (person or company) directs that edits be done, asks that a given page is created, etc. In 99% of cases, that is the subject of the article, but not always: someone might ask for an article about their son/father etc.

The employer is whoever (person or company) pays you. If you are working within a PR firm that gives you tasks, then that firm is the employer for every article. If you are a freelance, then the employer is usually the same as the client, though I imagine there might be some complex setups where divisions of a company ask for edits and another division hires out contractors to do them.

If the client or employer is a company, you need to give the name of that company, not the physical person that is your contact. For instance, if a contract is established between you and a company, then the employer is that company, not the physical person who signed it. Presumably, if that person changed roles / quit / died suddenly, the contract with the company would still go on. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated. I followed the sample that @UtherSRG showed. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of how to do this, see User:Pennepasta12345 - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Will update mine later. Bmjc98 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Chris troutman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Subject still fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG and will likely never be notable. The sources provided are either interviews and quotes (therefore not independent of the subject) or are mere mentions. Some of these sources are from entities the subject is involved with and one source doesn't mention the subject at all. This is the sort of output I would expect from a vain customer trying to buy coverage on Wikipedia. Please do not re-submit a draft on this person until the obits roll in.

Chris Troutman (talk) 03:33, 10 February 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 Mattdaviesfsic was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Needs expansion to establish notability. Stub-y article which - despite some good sources - would probably fail AfD. See WP:NCORP

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:Addmotor 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Douglas Cumming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Cumming until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. May I know why this page is nominated for deletion? Is it because it's too long for a biography page or the sources? Please advise.

And I would love to edit the page myself and trim down the page; however, due to COI issues, I needed to file a request before I could do so. Is there a way I could edit the page, so I will have a chance to keep the page? Please advise. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe this page shouldn't be nominated for deletion. Although it has multiple issues, I am still working to improve the page. For instance, the parts that were tagged as [unreliable source?][non-primary source needed], I added new sources to it, which you can find on the Talk page. Please do review the request.

I also feel that the main reason for deletion was the excessive use of primary sources. Those primary sources, by the way, were used for the Bibliography section. The page had a tag before that the Bibliography section was unsourced, so I added them to get rid of the tag. If those sources were not supposed to be there, the editor should have declined the request.

I could be wrong with my assumptions, but I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what went wrong and what needs to be done to keep this page. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the page. I will update the bibliography soon. I mean, I will request an edit to update the sources in the bibliography section to remove those primary sources. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Verisart is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verisart until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think this page should be deleted. If you search Verisart on Google, you will see many sources about the subject. If the page seems like an advertisement to you, I will edit it tomorrow to make it sound neutral. Thanks. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Hi Bmjc98. You've to disclose paid work when you start a project on your userpage or article's talkpage. We don't want to remind you each time. Undisclosed paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia. I've draftified UPE articles. US-Verified (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already disclosed these pages as non-paid. Please see my user page. I created these pages from my initiative because I wanted to make more pages even if I didn't get paid for them. As mentioned on my user page, these pages were inspired by watching Netflix, Snapchat, other social media accounts, and other wiki sites. As for Verisart, it was a page related to Robert L. Norton that I wanted to give a go. Robert L. Norton was supposed to be a paid contribution, but I didn't get paid because the attempt to create his page was unsuccessful. Therefore, I disclosed Verisart as non-paid because no one asked me to create this page in return for a certain amount.Bmjc98 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disclose pages to paid-contribution when I never get paid from these pages. Nigel Xavier, Daniel W. Fletcher, and Angel Chen are inspired by watching Next in Fashion. When Nigel Xavier won as the S2 winner, I created a page the following day because I was a fan of his work. When I checked the Next in Fashion Wiki page, I saw Daniel and Angel didn't have their own page, so I also created them. I even planned to create the rest of the participants one day.

On the other hand, Jason Vukovich was inspired by watching Snapchat videos. I even have a few lists of criminals to write about once I have enough time to do that. Athena Vas is one of the Youtube influencers I follow. Arnold Balais was my former prosthetic technician way back when I was only 20. He became famous in the country when he became the PADS Dragon Boat Team captain and even got a TV commercial. He didn't know I created a page until the page was finally got reviewed. The PADS was just another addition to the page I created, so Arnold Balais's page won't be tagged as an Orphan. My next goal is to create a page for the PADS team manager. I didn't get paid for these pages.

I was just inspired to create as many as I could. And since some of my early pages were declined many times, I started to focus on creating non-paid to help improve my understanding of the rules. Again, none of these people paid me to create their pages. Sadly, you assumed I get paid for all these pages.Bmjc98 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bmjc98, there is no issue with engaging in paid edits on Wikipedia, provided that you disclose them appropriately. For instance, there exists a public job posting that verifies Draft:Athena Vas as a paid job, which anyone can access. If you continue to refute this, then I can forward the evidence to the Arbcom/checkuser team. Coupled with your recent interest in web3, it has led me to believe that you are doing undisclosed editing (UPE). I kindly request, once again, that you maintain transparency and disclose any such edits. US-Verified (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Disclosing external accounts on Wikipedia: Paid editors must provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services. You must link, all the accounts where you're advertising your services, such as UpWork, Freelancer.com, Guru.com, and many more, on your userpage.

Please note that this is not optional. Some long term paid editors include User:Jhofferman. You can take help from that. US-Verified (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bmjc98. US-Verified (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I apologize for this. In the near future, if I create non-paid pages, do I really have to do them under AfC? Or can I do it directly, like what I did with my other contributions? Thanks. Bmjc98 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You are free to do non-paid work like any volunteer here (which means publish directly (AfC is optional) or edit directly (Wikipedia:Edit request is for paid edits). For paid work, please use WP:ER and WP:AFC. Thank you. US-Verified (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 19:13, 9 May 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 RPSkokie was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

WP:RS, WP:RSP.

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:Addmotor 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RPSkokie (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmjc98. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Please be more careful with your sourcing. You've recently added links to wikipedia mirrors, user-generated content, sites that source wikipedia and blogs. None of these are acceptable, and several of them are fairly clearly noted as mirrors or derived from here. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the update. I'll keep this in mind. I'll watch my sources in the future. Bmjc98 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 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 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.

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:Nomaan Sheikh 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmjc98. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Institute of Project Management, 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) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmjc98. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Institute of Project Management".

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. 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!} 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmjc98. 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.

--Blablubbs (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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:Athena Vas 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmjc98. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nomaan Sheikh, 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) 09:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmjc98. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nomaan Sheikh".

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. 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!} 07:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Vukovich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Vukovich until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Badbluebus (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]