User talk:Palucy

This is Palucy'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: Tidewater Staffing (December 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 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.

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:Tidewater Staffing 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.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Palucy! 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! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tidewater Staffing (January 5)

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 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.

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:Tidewater Staffing 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) 08:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Palucy. 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. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Situation Group (January 12)

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.

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:Situation Group 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) 17:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Grant (TV host) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Rebecca Grant (TV host). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is insufficiently referenced, and includes possible copyright violations. 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Rebecca Grant (TV host) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rebecca Grant (TV host). Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rebecca Grant (TV host) (January 29)

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 does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Sportskeeda, Fandom, Statista and eBay are not considered reliable 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:Rebecca Grant (TV host) 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) 19:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Situation Group (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CNMall41 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 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.

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:Situation Group 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid / COI editing

Hello Palucy. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Andrew Osei-Karmen ‎, 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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:Palucy. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Palucy|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) 10:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kuru, thanks for your concern. I am well aware of the Wikipedia policy being against paid editing. However, according to your last statement, you might be mistaken because I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for any of my edits on Wikipedia. Once again, thanks. Palucy (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Palucy (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd Robertson (May 6)

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

Jamiebuba (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Medical billing. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. med.report: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Count Count (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

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 ~~~~}}.

I think that's enough warnings now. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:02, 22 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Sam Kuru, I perfectly understand that I violated a Wikipedia policy by spamming pages with a link which served as a means to increase the website visit. I hereby promise to never engage in such activity or any activity that violates Wikipedia rules if given a second chance. Thank you as you consider my request Palucy (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You personally created the Tidewater Staffing logo and you personally own the copyright to it. You also wrote Draft:Tidewater Staffing. This is a clear and blatant violation of WP:UPE. That's just one single example. Yamla (talk) 12:56, 27 May 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.

You're still in violation of our terms of use. Need full disclosures on paid activities per WP:PAID that you've lied about. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam Kuru, like I've said before, I didn't do any edit for payment except this last one that led to my restriction, and now I've cut it off totally and promise never to engage in such ever again. Please review this. Thank you Palucy (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have claimed in the image information you include with your uploads that you personally created the images you uploaded; in several of them the subject is directly looking at your camera and posing for you. (such as File:Todd Robertson.png) You also have claimed to have personally created File:TSI picture.jpg, the logo of a company- and by uploading it to Commons you have made it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution("anyone" including competitors). I don't think the company would want you to do that, as then the company would not be entitled to any money if, hypothetically, someone sold products with its logo on them. These things make it very, very difficult to believe you have only made one paid edit. Note that "paid editing" is not limited to specific payment for edits. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, I don't really get the correlation between the image and logo update to the fact that I was paid for all the edits. Please make it clear to me if you don't mind. The images uploaded were found with open licenses on google. Only the last edit made (the one that got me restricted) was a paid one and I've cut the deal off. Please look into this. Palucy (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Palucy (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random images found with a search engine almost always do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia. There must be an explicit copyright notice showing that the copyright of the image permits reuse for anyone by any purpose with attribution. That is almost never the case with a company logo(for the reason I indicated in my earlier post).

Even if there was no copyright issue, you still claim that you personally created the images; look at the image page and see where it says by "own work" your username, this means that you are saying you were the photographer or(in the case of the logo) the creator of the logo. The image of Todd Robertsom shows him looking at the camera and waving at the photographer- this would mean that you had access to him and he knew you were taking his photo. That usually indicates paid editing. Is it your position that you didn't personally create the images you uploaded?

If you didn't, you need to go to Commons and change the attribution information to reflect that you are using the image under a free license, not claim that you personally created it. 331dot (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I will have to chance the attribution information to reflect the proper claim. Palucy (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have any connection with Tidewater staffing? 331dot (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why I just changed their logo attribution information to show it. Please confirm this and suggest further steps for approval of my unblock request. Palucy (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TSI picture.jpg still notes that you personally created it, that it was your "own work". --Yamla (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reconfirm this? I have changed it as it is not my work. Palucy (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Source: Own work". And with an almost certainly false license, too. So, nope, you haven't fixed it at all. All you seem to have done is replace one false license with another. --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain how I can go about this step-by-step. I'm having difficulties in getting it done. Palucy (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being honest with your paid editing as you have not yet disclosed all your paid edits. Please disclose all your paid edits using the {{paid}} template. Additionally, you are required to provide a link to your profile where you advertise your paid editing services. This information is necessary for transparency, as outlined in WP:PAID. Could you please share the link to where you advertise your paid editing services? GSS ^💬 18:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one paid edit, which is the last one before I got restricted, I will do the needful soon. However, I'm sorry, I won't be able to provide the link you requested for, as it is public. Palucy (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's public, there is nothing preventing you from linking to it. If it's private, you need to link to it anyway. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To get unblocked, you must fully comply with WP:PE, which requires providing links on your user page to all active accounts on external websites where you advertise, solicit, or obtain paid editing work. Without this disclosure, there is no chance of getting unblocked. GSS ^💬 04:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Situation Group

Hello, Palucy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Situation Group, 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) 13:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

Note my block of obvious sock Bdatpal.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Situation Group

Hello, Palucy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Situation Group".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Todd Robertson

Hello, Palucy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Todd Robertson, 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) 05:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]