User talk:Poopas1994

This is Poopas1994'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: sandbox (November 13)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Biographical articles cannot be accepted into the encyclopedia without proper sourcing with citations placed inline per the guidelines at WP:REFB.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Poopas1994/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Poopas1994/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Eagleash (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Poopas1994! Having an article 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! Eagleash (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 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 Theroadislong 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Poopas1994/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Poopas1994/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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) 12:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article about yourself, at User:Poopas1994/sandbox. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Poopas1994! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Eagleash (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much recommend that you study carefully, all the links you have ben provided with including the tutorial, the manual of style, the guide to article creation and the guides to correctly adding references. WP:RS may also be of interest as to what constitutes a usable source. The draft currently in your sandbox does not represent a usable Wikipedia article and the addition (and re-addition) of duplicated content and notices etc. makes the whole thing somewhat confusing and reduces the chances of positve reviews. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christine Kato (November 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 Robert McClenon 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 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:

This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

This draft reads like a marketing brochure for the subject's merchandise

This draft has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources.

This draft has been resubmitted without any visible improvement, or with very little improvement. If you do not know what is needed to improve this draft, please ask for advice rather than making minor improvements and resubmitting.

You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the declining reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.)

If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement again, it is likely to be rejected, and it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested against further submission by the responsible editor.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Christine Kato and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Christine Kato, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Christine Kato has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Christine Kato. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Poopas1994. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Christine Kato, 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 or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} 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 WP:Spam);
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. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have no relationship whatsoever with the Subject. I saw the work in several publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopas1994 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, Poopas1994, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Christine Kato (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I don't know the subject personally. I saw her works in Publications--Poopas1994 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but you took her photograph and photographed all her certificates and patent documents? Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Sir they are online. I found them on her pages. Check they are there including social media.

Then, clearly, none of the images you uploaded are your copyright and we shall have to arrange for them to be deleted immediately as a copyright violation. Shall I link to this declaration that the images are not your own? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sir not mine--Poopas1994 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I see it's been taken down thank you :) any more suggestions?--Poopas1994 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fine for resubmission? Why cant I use a photo which is in the public domain?--Poopas1994 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because taking an image from another website which has not previously released that image under a Creative Commons licence (- specifically, it needed to have a commercial re-use one, called CC-BY-SA) licence is copyright theft. If the image had been placed in the public domain under a valid licence, which permitted anyone to use it, even commercially, that would have been OK. Please see the response from Victor Schmidt at the Teahouse which took a lot of effort and which assesses each citation and show that our criteria for notability have not been met. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. We learn something new everyday. Thank you for the information --Poopas1994 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Great idea I saw on the talk page.I change the page title to the invention itself since it's what is notible. High resolution can be gotten from goggle image website or social pages. Its interesting learning:)--Poopas1994 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christine Kato (November 15)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Curbon7 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Curbon7 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with 'Autobiography'

Replying to your comment in the User talk:Theroadislong (archive link: HERE).

Biographies are usually written by someone else than subject. For example, Alice writes a history of Bob's life. We say it is a biography of Bob by Alice. In a special case of a biography writen by its subject – say, Peter writes about himself, his own biography – we call it autobiography.
'Auto-' means 'self' – the Peter's biography written by its subject himself is Peter's autobiography.

So when you refer to a biography written by you 'this autobiography', this implies it is a biography about you written by yourself. Hence the part 'is not about myself' opposes the former 'auto-', makes a contradiction. As a result it makes the whole sentence self-contradictory.

Possibly that is not what you meant. Anyway, whether or not it's your autobiography is not the most important issue here. There are two crucial objections:

the subject's notability (as defined within Wikipedia for Wikipedia's purposes at the page WP:Notability) is not proven, and
you seem to have a WP:Conflict of interest in the article. (Writing autobiography is possibly a strongest case of CoI, but even its weaker forms may disqualify article from publication.)

Please see the guidelines pages I linked above and try to resolve the problems. Do not hesitate to ask for more explanation or help, either directly at Talk pages of involved users or in a friendly Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Christine Kato

Hello, Poopas1994. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Christine Kato, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]