User talk:Bizarre90

This is Bizarre90'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: Felipe Vasquez (December 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 Qcne 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.

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:Felipe Vasquez 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) 19:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bizarre90! 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) 19:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello Bizarre90. 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 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:Bizarre90. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bizarre90|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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I appreciate your message and want to clarify that I do not receive any form of compensation for my edits on Wikipedia. - apologizes for any confusion my writing style may have caused. Being a college student, I'm accustomed to using first-person language, and at times, I forget to make the necessary adjustments.

I want to assure you that my contributions are made in good faith, with the intent of improving content and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I do not have any undisclosed financial stake or receive compensation for promoting any topic.

If there are specific concerns or suggestions you have regarding my contributions, I am more than willing to address them and make the necessary adjustments to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Bizarre90 (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an association with Felipe Vasquez, Phone Up Studios Inc, or Hell, Michigan, you need to WP:DISCLOSE that even if they're not compensating you. Apocheir (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apocheir I wanted to clarify that I have no association whatsoever with Hell, Michigan, or Phone Up Studios Inc. My commitment is solely to Wikipedia as a volunteer editor. Bizarre90 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phone Up Studios Inc for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phone Up Studios Inc is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Up Studios Inc until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Big Dipper (Battersea Fun Fair)

The article Big Dipper (Battersea Fun Fair) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Newly-created duplication of existing Battersea Park funfair disaster article. We have articles on the fair, and the disaster. The Big Dipper has no independent notability beyond the scope of the existing articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And while you are at it, I suggest you take note of what I wrote regarding the photos you included. Wikipedia does not appreciate either copyright violation, or blatant misrepresentation of what photos actually depict. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page 'biography'

If you are going to use an AI generated or boilerplate 'biography', at least put in the effort to read it afterwards. That way, anyone reading My editing contributions cover a wide array of topics, including [insert specific interests or subjects you've worked on]. won't spot it quite as easily. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I haven’t decided which topics that i will be covering yet. I have many interests; as why the blank was empty. Bizarre90 (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Big Dipper (amusement park ride)

The article Big Dipper (amusement park ride) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

page has been redirected

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Felipe Vasquez (March 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 Shewasafairy 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:

sources are WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNRELIABLE.

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:Felipe Vasquez 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.

She was ^afairy 21:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty University Online Academy moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Liberty University Online Academy. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill — Thank you for your feedback and for converting the article to a draft for further improvement. I appreciate the opportunity to refine my contribution. Could you please provide more guidance on the potential conflict of interest you've identified? Understanding your concerns will help me revise the article accordingly to ensure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. thank you Bizarre90 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft appears excessively promotional, and it is particularly concerning that it includes citations that go into significant further detail regarding the school's character as a Christian institution, but that this is not mentioned in the actual article. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make any necessary disclosures as appropriate. Do also note that the publication of the American Family Association is unlikely to be considered a reliable source, and that "find a school" or other database sites do not typically contribute to establishing a subject's notability and are generally less reliable than secondary coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill — Thank you for your feedback. I will certainly address the issues raised in the draft article. To clarify, this draft is not subject to any disclosures as there are no conflicts of interest or paid editing involved whatsoever. I will work on correcting the writing tone, ensuring it is neutral and informative. Additionally, I will incorporate the citations more effectively, going into depth where necessary and adding additional citations based on the available information — Thank you once again for assisting in become a better Wikipedia editor. Bizarre90 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberty University Online Academy (LUOA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prestigious. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Your user page reads like a CV. Please bear in mind that self-promotion on user pages is not encouraged. Deb (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advising. I’ll adjust accordingly. Bizarre90 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax articles

Be aware that should you make the slightest attempt to move Draft:Felipe Vasquez to article space, I shall immediately call for it to be deleted as a hoax, and ask that you be indefinitely blocked from editing. As was already made perfectly clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Up Studios Inc, the sources cited there, and again here, are clearly and unambiguously false. Not just invalid, as press releases etc, but fictitious. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the same comments also apply to Draft:The Phone Up Studios Inc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump — I want to clarify that I did not create the page nor am I affiliated with the listed pages. I have no intention of publishing these drafts. I would appreciate if you had more respect for your fellow editors. Bizarre90 (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware that a 'new' contributor has magically appeared out of nowhere to recreate the same bullshit you were promoting earlier. And then mysteriously left it to you to continue editing it. If you want respect, I suggest you do something to earn it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest checking the IP address associated with the edits. I’m not affiliated with the editor you’re referring to. Bizarre90 (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why have you recommenced editing this bullshit then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some inaccuracies in the content (disarranged sources, missing logo, etc.) and was working on a research project related to Vasquez. Bizarre90 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously expect anyone to take that BS seriously? You created the Vasquez draft back in December. You edited it a couple of days ago, and today. It was garbage then. It is garbage now. You are promoting garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:04, 12 June 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).

Bizarre90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not vandalized Wikipedia and have used accurate resources to back-up my edits, I have acted in good-faith on wikipedia and have not, from my recollection broken any guidelines set in place Bizarre90 (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you think that your fictitious sources are accurate, there are no grounds to remove the block. I don't know what game it is you are running here, but there are way too many questions surrounding your edits to allow you to participate here. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 13 June 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.

Speedy deletion of Draft:Felipe Vasquez

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Draft:Felipe Vasquez, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]