Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to M-Dot have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bilorv 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.
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:Caleb Maupin 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, Belltreelover!
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! — Bilorv (talk) 08:27, 5 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 UtherSRG was:
Please read WP:MUSICBIO for the requirements of establishing notability for a musician.
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:Justin Clancy (musician) 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 experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Kstern (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the issue with the Washington D.C. image, but what's the issue with the Donkey image? Clear and high quality image, relevant to the article, can I get a good explanation as to why it was removed or am I just going to get the usual? (Belltreelover (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The specific MOS:IMAGEQUALITY issue is that the photos were both dark and blurry. Kstern (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite ironic considering not only that the pictures here on the left have substantially higher quality image resolutions but they have, in order, quadruple and double the amount of pixels than the current images which I tried to replace, which would factually and objectively make them of a better quality image than the ones that they replaced. If you'd like to check this information I'm going to post the links to all 4 images where it shows in writing the image quality of each one*. As for the blur, professional photographers use a technique called "focus" which brings the subject, here being the "donkey" and "cow", into clear focus and adds a slight blur to whatever is in the background so as to make the subject stand out. As you can see with the image on the right, the cow does not stand out at all and rather blends into the picture where as the picture on the left the cow not only stands out among his surroundings but it also makes for a more creative shot all around. As for the darkness, I brought out the contrast to add some vibrance to the photograph which darkens it slightly but that can be undone in editing. As for the original donkey, it not only notes in Wikimedia commons that it is of low image resolution but it also shows that the image was darkened and warns about it, as well. I don't mean to evoke hostility here, rather communication, but lots of times on this website I get the feeling it is more about favoritism, exorcising power and being malignant toward other editors than it is about honest editing and feedback. You can see this evidently, too, when some articles get approved that have no solid references or sources & 2 or 3 secondary sources while other articles with 2 or 3 dozen solid references get shot down with little to no explanation and 0 feedback as to how you can make it better. Shouldn't you guys be giving me feedback as to how to get my picture worthy of having it not taken down so I can make that edit and put it back up? Or is this more about preventing certain editors from contributing?
Thank you for including the side-by-side comparisons. I did not remove the cow image, though I concur with its removal since the photo only shows the head of the animal in detail, making it not encyclopedic enough to be a lead image (MOS:LEADIMAGE). @Justlettersandnumbers: pinging the user who reverted. The donkey image is too dark, and again a profile photo would be more encyclopedic. Kstern (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Kstern – I was actually already editing this page. Belltreelover, I came here to apologise for leaving an unnecessarily critical edit summary when I removed those two images from Cattle; it would have cost me nothing to be more courteous, so I'm sorry about that. That said, neither image is of a very high standard. The Fleckvieh image that you removed is a high-quality photograph; it's a featured picture on Commons, and is of a photographic standard that most of us just dream of reaching. Yours is under-exposed, low in contrast, doesn't show the animal and has barbed wire across it; the first two could be at least partially remedied in Photoshop quite easily, but getting rid of the barbed wire probably isn't worth the time/effort. The Shadows/Highlights tool might help bring your donkey out of that pool of darkness, but it still wouldn't tell us much about the animal. The existing lead image is no masterpiece, and at a low resolution; but it gives a good clear idea of what a donkey might be expected to look like. There may be better ones for that spot on on the page, I haven't checked recently. Anyway, in all this, the talk-page is your friend – if you think I was wrong to remove your photo, start a talk-page discussion; others will weigh in, and if all goes well a consensus decision will be reached. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Ponyo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! -- Ponyobons mots 23:06, 10 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 HitroMilanese 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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Justin Clancy (musician) 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.
This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
How exactly do you figure this is a sockpuppet account? If it's about the Justin Clancy submission I apologize and I won't try to submit that anymore, I just thought adding another reference might make it legitimate enough for you? Tell me what is giving you the idea that this is a sockpuppet account and I'll refrain from whatever that is. Belltreelover (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Clearly not here to contribute constructively based on your little rant below. You can find a different site to troll. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You people all really suck, I come here and try to contribute and dedicate my free time to doing this for free and literally 9 out of ten things I contribute get criticized from 100 parallaxed directions by dorks who never leave their mother's basement. <--- personality disorder No wonder why Wikipedia has to beg for financial contributions. So I edit a page that was once edited by a sock puppet and somehow that gets projected onto me? This whole site is really, truly pathetic and I'm honestly not even sure that I want my account unblocked. I've been told so many conflicting rules and views on these rules that I feel like no matter what I do I'm doing something wrong, I could post a picture with 10 times the image quality as the one it replaced and it's criticized. I could publish a draft with multiple credible and renown third parties writing a literal book on that person and it gets denied. But then I go to some of these other pages, and these articles get passed with literally 0 legitimate references. The bias here is unreal. I can never get a good explanation or feedback for anything that would make my article better, either. You people are high off of the imagined power that this website gives you, I pray for you all. (Belltreelover (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.
_Oeschinensee_Slaunger_2009-07-07.jpg){kind=link}
