User talk:J.J.Portman

Welcome!

Hi J.J.Portman! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello, J.J.Portman. You have new messages at Gene93k's talk page.
Message added 01:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Indica Monroe has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Indica Monroe. Thanks! • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Summers moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Tristan Summers, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 15:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your most recent edits on the Tristan Summers draft. You restored some of the same junk-quality references, this time with false publisher identifications. This is a disruptive waste of reviewers' and other editors' time and attention. I have asked you multiple times to consult Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please stop what you are doing. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello colleagues. I have read the wikipedia rules. And these sources are not for PR, there links seem to be normal, not deceptive, but the texts are copied from some site, while I am reworking the article. Yes, I stop such as inappropriate actions in this project. We must now act from these articles. And then until it is edited, then it will be deleted, I make it obligatory today. J.J.Portman (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're literally not reliable sources in any manner whatsoever. Further no one cares what a random persons guess of their worth is. Stop moving htem and stop adding these sources. Wikipedia is under no obligation to accept anything in any time frame. CUPIDICAE💕 15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand these sources are reliable in my opinion, you look there, you enter the notes there, you will see mine, I was not mistaken. There is no PR. Seems like a reliable source. I don’t see any reason for uncertainty, I don’t have a problem with sources, please look again at the site. before discussing me. Sincerely, J.J.Portman (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is irrelevant. We don't rely on feelings or single editor opinions on Wikipedia. We rely on established reliable sources that have a history of fact checking, not generic mirrors and gossip published by random people on the internet. If you continue to add these sources and publish BLPs about people with said sources, I will request a topic ban restricting you from editing any biography of living people. CUPIDICAE💕 16:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I warned you next time I’ll take into account as much as possible, find authoritative sources in Google search. You can find it on Yandex or on the official website of these actresses. Maybe today I will find and write the necessary sources for notes there. And if I find it there and write, stop, I will close these my cases and articles without violating and warning, I will soon process all the sources as needed and supplement the links to the non-violating article of the Wikipedia project. J.J.Portman (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asserted in a previous response that Google does not host junk. A site's listing on Google on Google, Yandex, Bing or Duck Duck Go does not make it a trustworthy reference for facts. In fact, at least two of the references you labeled as "AVN" (filmyvip.com and Slave Zero News) expressly disclaim the accuracy of their information. Instead of "authoritative" sources, please try news agencies with good reputations for fact checking. Mainstream press is good. Hard news reporting by AVN or XBIZE may also be acceptable. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This means that these sites are unacceptable for use, and some garbage, as I understand it, okay tomorrow I will act, google does not give garbage, this is true, I repeat once again there is no need to humiliate the google search engine, you can humiliate the site itself, and the search engine simply provides it, they will not mislead people. J.J.Portman (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indica Monroe moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Indica Monroe, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 15:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving articles

Stop pretending to review drafts. You haven't got the experience or understanding (or clue) how our guidelines or policies work and it's quite disruptive. If you want to review drafts, go apply for WP:AFCP by demonstrating an understanding of sourcing requirements, among other things. Until then, leave reviewing and page moves to more experienced editors. Thanks. CUPIDICAE💕 17:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 17:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually question whether the editor has the competence required to edit here given the above discussions and the ridiculously misleading edit summaries on the recent moves, but AGF and this will stop disruption and allow discussion. As usual, if any admin finds the block is no longer needed, no need to wait for my OK. Star Mississippi 17:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Your recent editing history at Olena Zelenska shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Olena Zelenska. You keep changing her birth date to 7 February despite the source saying it is 6 February. Unless you provide a source for your changes it is vandalism Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Tristan Summers

Hello, J.J.Portman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tristan Summers, 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) 16:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Indica Monroe

Hello, J.J.Portman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Indica Monroe, 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) 19:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Tristan Summers

Hello, J.J.Portman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tristan Summers".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 16:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Indica Monroe

Hello, J.J.Portman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Indica Monroe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple accounts

Hello, J.J.Portman, 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 KaiSheikh (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. 2A01:4C8:49:B2A2:8040:10FF:FEB7:AA67 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]