User talk:Dadoocharger12

This is Dadoocharger12'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: Azka (April 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 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:

Content is sourced solely to Twitter, which is not a reliable source demonstrating significant coverage.

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:Azka 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.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dadoocharger12! 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! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, Dadoocharger12. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but a page you created Draft:Azka has been deleted as meeting one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects of articles must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources which are unconnected with the subject and which provide verifiable information. Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see WP:CORP for subjects that are groups or companies or organizations. Please see WP:ANYBIO for subjects who are people. Please see Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is a useful tutorial.

Also, encyclopedia articles must be neutral in tone and not use language that promotes or advocates for a subject, or tries to cast the subject in a favorable light. Please see Information on content and common pitfalls to avoid here and here. Sometimes creators of promotional/advocational content are bewildered that it is considered such. If one has been trained to write such content, or if one has spent some time writing such content, one may simply be blind to non-neutral phrases or styles.

Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. A common assumption is that the prohibition against promotional editing applies only to businesses or organizations. It applies to any topic, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

CV's/resumé's are by their nature promotional. Writing about oneself or any connected subject is discouraged as the connection can make objectivity difficult. Information on avoiding advocational content and common pitfalls is here and here, however be aware that these are not exhaustive.

New article creation can be difficult, but the Article Wizard can help you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. You can also ask for help at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, and on IRC chat. Sometimes it is better to first gain experience by fixing and helping maintain existing articles. Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask contains links to things that badly need doing, if you are so inclined.

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hi Dadoocharger12! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern regarding edit warring, and I appreciate the reminder about Wikipedia's policies. However, I want to emphasize that X is one of the most authentic sources of information, and citations from X are entirely justified in this context. This controversy is already in the public domain, and it is important that it remains documented for the public record. My goal is to ensure that the information presented is accurate and well-sourced, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Dadoocharger12 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting vapid gossip and citing it to Xitter is the exact opposite of being "in line with Wikipedia's guidelines". We don't want the gossip, and you absolutely cannot be citing social media of any sort for any sort of challengeable claim, as you'd know if you'd actually read WP:Biographies of living persons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The block is explicitly for BLP violations at Sonia Khan, but the attempts to promote another person would by themselves be sufficient reason to block. (In my opinion, Deepfriedokra.) Bishonen | tålk 08:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]