User talk:Deuxfeutres

Welcome!

Hello, Legmark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! creffett (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Maxey (September 14)

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

No evidence of notability under WP:NPEOPLE. Wikipedia is not a people directory.

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:James Maxey 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.

Qcne (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Legmark! 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! Qcne (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Legmark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Draft:Express Solicitors, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Qcne (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Legmark, going by your User Page bio I am guessing your are being employed by Express Solicitors to create Wikipedia pages, even on a freelance basis? You must immediately declare this under WP:PAID - failure to do so is a breach of Wikimedia Terms and Conditions.

As you can see I've declined your James Maxey and Express Solicitors drafts for not meeting our notability requirements. Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Express Solicitors (September 14)

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

Sorry- this also does not pass WP:NORG. Most of your references are either WP:PRIMARY, or press releases, or PR articles, or trivial 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:Express Solicitors 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.

Qcne (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed feedback. I'll update the article accordingly and resubmit it. The company involved should pass the notability criteria fairly easily as they're a bigger company than National Accident Helpline - I just think they don't have as much visibility online. These should give an idea of the size - they will be the largest firm of their kind in the UK soon: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/pi-practice-eyeing-number-one-spot-snaps-up-two-more-firms/5116787.article https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2118558-personal-injury-law-firm-completes-double-acquisition-boosting-headcount-to-650 Legmark (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlos Lopez (September 14)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

None of the sources provide WP:SIGCOV of the person and they are all essentially primary sources. See WP:GNG for the type of sources you need to establish notability and try at 3-4 of these sources.

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:Carlos Lopez 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.

––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 10:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Legmark. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 {{edit COI}} 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. RE: Express Solicitors and Carlos Lopez ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 10:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Legmark, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Legmark|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. Qcne (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legmark you must let me know if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia by Express Solicitors, or any other marketing company. Please click Reply here and respond. Qcne (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies I thought this had been done as I left the below tag at the top of the article but it did not render correctly. I also left it in the comments for the edits. Please advise if you need anything further.

Legmark, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Legmark on behalf of Express Solicitors for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Legmark (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've put it onto your user page now which was the correct thing to do.

As a paid editor, we will be examining your edits with a much higher degree of scrutiny. I will check your two submissions now. Qcne (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legmark,

Your draft Draft:James_Maxey does not yet show that James passes the WP:NPEOPLE criteria, and therefore my declination still stands.

I will go through the sources to explain why they do not show notability:

1) UoL, no mention of James

2) LinkedIn, not independent of James

3) ExpressSolicitors, not independent of James

4) LawSociety, this URL does not seem to load for me

5) LawSociety, this is just a database entry so not significant coverage

6) APIL, no mention of James

7) Companies House, just a database entry

8) SolicitorsJournal, I cannot access this without paying, but it likely is about the company, not James

9) TheBusinessDesk, about the company and no significant coverage of James

10) Insider Media, about the company no significant coverage of James. Qcne (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legmark now for the Draft:Express_Solicitors draft.

This is a tricky one to review. You've used lots of [WP:PRIMARY]] sources, simple database entries, and review websites. These can be used to show the organisation exists, but does nothing to show significant coverage under WP:ORG.

Every other secondary source has the scent of a regurgitated press release about them, as they all contain lines like: "James Maxey said...". This means they are not independent of the subject. We don't care what the staff of a company have to say about their organisation: we care what independent sources say about the organisation, and how they provide analysis, discussion, and interpretation.

As such, I do not believe this draft passes WP:NORG.

If you have been paid by Express Solicitors then I would recommend offering a refund. If you are an employee, then please read WP:BOSS and show it to your manager.

Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Qcne - having looked at the sources on the National Accident Helpline page we thought we were ok here. We haven't been directly paid for creating this Wiki page but given that we have done some other work with Express, we've made the declaration as requested for clarity.

There are currently only a couple of personal injury firms in the UK bigger than Express Solicitors and as a top 100 law firm, I feel that they are of a suitable size to warrant a wikipedia entry, especially given the continued expansion through acquiring other high-profile law firms. Is there an example of what you would like to see in terms of the references? I note on this page: Browne Jacobson the sources don't appear as comprehensive or as independent as the Express page and many link back to the site itself. Perhaps we can revisit with additional sources in future?

Thanks for your help. Legmark (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Legmark. Wikipedia has millions of articles many thousands of which are unfortunately poor quality. As we're all volunteers we will never be able to get every article up to standard, but we certainly don't want to add more poor quality articles to the project, which is why we now have these strict notability requirements. The Browne Jacobson article would also fail WP:NORG if I were reviewing it today: it was created all the way back in 2008 when our standards were more lax.

The key thing about companies is that is isn't how big they are compared to their competitors that gives them notability under our definition. No company has inherent notability just for existing or for its market share or stock price etc. We judge companies based on if there is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As I showed above, some of your sources fail that, so the notability test was not proven. If you can find further sources that meet that criteria, let me know and I'll have another look.

Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qcne,

Thanks for the feedback. We have spent further time finding notable references by 3^rd parties and have included many significant new sources including the BBC, Daily Mail, local papers, legal publications and more. Where 1^st party or press release references have been kept this is solely to support the point made in the article as evidence, so I feel they do need to be in there (e.g. to justify turnover, or legal rankings), although these are now in the minority.

In addition, we have included notable and current cases to show the impact Express have had on the legal sector, large corporations, and the lives of individuals. This has included being a key player in raising awareness of court delays, safe workplaces for neurodivergent individuals, and the first firm in the UK to offer pupillage to aspiring barristers.

They are larger than many in the current Law firms in the UK article – including Co-Op, Howe & Co and others. Additional evidence of their size and aspirations is below:

£54 ($65.94) million revenue (2023) and over 500 staff, one of the largest personal injury firms in the UK
Ranked 80th in Lawyer Top 200 UK Law Firms
Aim to have 1,000 staff within the next five years

The combination of this size, aspirational growth plans, influence in the sector, influence in people’s lives and more I believe does show them as notable. Especially when many in the current Law firms in the UK article lack any of this detail. Legmark (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legmark Thanks. If you feel the draft now does prove notability under WP:NORG I'd recommend you re-submit for review. I did feel it was almost borderline acceptable when I last reviewed it. I may have time to review it later this evening.

Just one note though: the size, income, and rankings of companies is not a criteria for notability. Notability only comes from the quality of sources provided. Qcne (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Qcne, I have resubmitted it for review now. Legmark (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legmark I see it was declined by my colleague reviewer- I'd recommend asking them directly on their user talk page for advice. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we have sent them a message. Legmark (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - I'm no longer working with Express so there's no COI there and no payment was received for the wikipedia pages in the end. Hopefully everyone's more comfortable with that now, but I can't remove the pages as the account is blocked still. Deuxfeutres (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Maxey (October 11)

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

Please reply to the message I have left on your Talk Page.

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:James Maxey 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.

Qcne (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Express Solicitors (October 11)

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

Please reply to the message I have left on your Talk Page.

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:Express Solicitors 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.

Qcne (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Express Solicitors (October 27)

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

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:Express Solicitors 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) 11:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing our submission for Express Solicitors and for the feedback. We have spent the last month refining the item with the editor Qcne based on multiple rounds of feedback in order to ensure the item is neutral and notable (see comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Legmark).

They last stated the piece was almost acceptable prior to the last revisions where we added notable references by 3^rd parties and have included many significant new sources including the BBC, Daily Mail, local papers, legal publications and more. Where 1^st party or press release references have been kept this is solely to support the point made in the article as evidence, so I feel they do need to be in there (e.g. to justify turnover, or legal rankings), although these are now in the minority.

Can you please allow Qcne to conduct a final review or if that's not possible review it again on this basis? Many thanks. Legmark (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesey ping @Theroadislong Qcne (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" user accounts are strictly single person use and The Daily Mail is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we don't allow corporate accounts and this clearly is one. Secretlondon (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah man, I didn't think to Google search Legmark, but yeah it's a PR agency for law firms. The User Page made me think it was an individual. If I had realised earlier I would have ARV'ed. Qcne (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:James Maxey has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:James Maxey. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Express Solicitors has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Express Solicitors. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because corporate username, all editing is COI. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}} Secretlondon (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Deuxfeutres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I tried to submit a username change request a couple of weeks ago, I've just done it again now in case the first one didn't go through or was rejected. I didn't realise it contravened policy when I set the account up a few years ago. Sorry. Legmark (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your username is only one small part of the problem here. Yamla (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think I'd addressed all the other points of feedback up to the username issue? Looking at the page objectively against some of the others on the Category:Law firms of the United Kingdom page - I think it stands up, comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced and referenced. Certainly the law firm is bigger than some of those (although I appreciate that's not the criteria for passing the notability test) but there are a number of good quality secondary sources on the page. I can't do anything else so if it's deemed not sufficient then I'll have to come back if/when there are more secondary sources and you feel that the notability test is passed. On the basis that there's nothing else I can do on that page, and the username issue is resolved, is there some other reason for the block? Deuxfeutres (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to address any other issues because you've blocked my account from editing pages. Please can you either unblock so I can withdraw the pages, or can you withdraw them yourself? I can't see any other reason for this ongoing block once those pages are removed? Deuxfeutres (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed your account from "Legmark" to "Deuxfeutres". However, as Yamla has said, that is only a small part of the problem, and you will need to address the other issues too if you are to be unblocked. JBW (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the account was blocked based on the username. No other reason for the block was provided. I've updated the username now so I can't see what else needs to be done for this to be unblocked now? Deuxfeutres (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a second reason above, "all editing is COI." and you have not addressed this? Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I address that issue? Does it mean I can't ever write anything for Wikipedia? I'm not sure what you want/need me to do to address this? Deuxfeutres (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - this has been a genuine oversight, I've not tried to hide anything and was not aware of the username rule (not sure if I missed that on first registering or not) but have done what was requested each time it was requested. Deuxfeutres (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't edit Wikipedia on behalf of clients. Secretlondon (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Carlos Lopez

Hello, Deuxfeutres. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Carlos Lopez, 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) 11:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:James Maxey

Hello, Deuxfeutres. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:James Maxey, 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) 16:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:James Maxey

Hello, Deuxfeutres. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "James Maxey".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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!} 19:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]