User talk:JennyMontana

This is JennyMontana'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.

Hello, JennyMontana, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernie Ashman (Astrologer) (September 27)

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:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

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:Bernie Ashman (Astrologer) 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JennyMontana! 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) 22:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello JennyMontana. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Ross Garcia (author), 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:JennyMontana. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=JennyMontana|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. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message. I would like to clarify that I am not engaged in paid editing or advocacy on behalf of anyone for the article Draft Ross Garcia (author) or any other Wikipedia content. My contributions are voluntary and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral point of view and verifiability. I have no financial or professional relationship with the subject of the article. If any of my edits seem promotional, I am open to constructive feedback to ensure that they adhere to Wikipedia's content standards. Please let me know if further clarification is needed.

Thank you. JennyMontana (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer the same with regard to Draft:Bernie Ashman (Astrologer)? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My answer would still remain the same, I am not engaged in paid editing or advocacy on behalf of anyone JennyMontana (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ross Garcia (author) (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by I dream of horses 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'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:

Completely unsourced.

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:Ross Garcia (author) 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.

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jaylen Smith (Canadian football) (September 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer 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:Jaylen Smith (Canadian football) 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernie Ashman (Astrologer) (October 1)

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 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'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:

Insufficiently referenced, with no evidence of notability.

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:Bernie Ashman (Astrologer) 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Karel Lavrih. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Thank you. JennyMontana (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Katie Goodman has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Katie Goodman. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JennyMontana (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: IRVINEi Corporation (October 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chaotic Enby was:

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:IRVINEi Corporation 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.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katie Goodman (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 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.

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:

Many of the sources are not reliable (blogs/blog posts, PR sites, IMDB, FilmFreeway, commercial sites selling her book, etc.) and some of the sources do not support the claims made. Also see WP:CITEKILL. Only one source is needed to support a fact so no need to cite several especially when most are poor sources so just serve to bury the better ones.

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:Katie Goodman 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.

S0091 (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello JennyMontana. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:JennyMontana. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=JennyMontana|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. S0091 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Nord moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to William Nord. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the use of fake and blatantly obvious PR/SEO sources, I've disabled this account as an undisclosed paid editor. I do not believe your responses in the sections above. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public domain I guess? Without any proofs or scrutiny how can you justify the block? The sources are all present online, If you say so that the sources are not fit to go, then remove the sources or move the page in draft space which you already did, then why the block? I want moderators and admins to look in to it and kindly unblock the entry and account so that I can continue to learn and be in Wikipedia community. Thank you JennyMontana (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennyMontana, please see WP:GAB for how to make an unblock request. Just to clarify, Wikipedia does not have moderators and Sam Kuru, the editor who blocked you, is an WP:administrator (aka admin) but a different admin will review your unblock request should you make one. S0091 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will, as an admin this user is misusing the platform without any probable evidence of paid editing and just blatantly blocking the account without properly addressing the issue. I will appeal through proper channels after studying the page you mentioned JennyMontana (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2024 (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).

JennyMontana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admins, Its a request for an unblock of my account, falsely accused of paid editing. All the articles created on Wikipedia were based solely on publicly available online sources, and have consistently clarified that I am not affiliated with any paid associations.

I would like to bring to your attention that an admin named "Sam Kuru" has made multiple edits regarding my contributions without providing any substantial evidence of paid placements. This has led to my current block, which I feel is unwarranted.

I kindly ask for your understanding and a review of my case. I am committed to upholding Wikipedia's integrity and ensuring that my contributions adhere to its guidelines.

Thank you for your consideration. ) JennyMontana (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on what I see, I don't think the accusation is false. You also seem to think that because your sources are public that it means you aren't a paid editor. One doesn't have to do with the other; all sources are supposed to be public, private sources are not acceptable. Until you are honest about your connection to the people you have edited about, there is no pathway forward. Good block. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2024 (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.