User talk:Jayson

May 2022

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 User:Petjayso/sandbox 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petjayso! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (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 Theroadislong 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:

lacking in 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 User:Petjayso/sandbox 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) 20:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Petjayso. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Debbie Critchfield, 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 {{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 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. GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty I understand, I just met her once and I need to make this article. It's about time someone made one for her! Petjayso (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Debbie Critchfield (December 26)

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

There are no independent sources - see WP:POLITICIAN.

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:Debbie Critchfield 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.

GoingBatty (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINKING

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I did such a thing lol. I was also not aware that there was such a rule on Wikipedia. Thank you for notifying me. Petjayso (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. I was not overlinking. There were links for Android and iOS already, but there were so for the Consoles that had Among Us aswell. In the same section. Why remove the links I added when you did not remove the other links? Idk its just not making a whole lot of sense to me. Petjayso (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Debbie Critchfield (May 19)

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 Bonadea was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Also written like a personal profile, in an unencyclopedic tone – that could be fixed by editing, but the lack of notability can't.

bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Uhhh, other editors HAVE claimed that Debbie IS notable. She is in a statewide position Petjayso (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the AfC Petjayso (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show zero notability. --bonadea contributions talk 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Huh? the Petjayso (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops typo. Ballptpedia is a reliable source Petjayso (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Her predecessors had articles Petjayso (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Salva Dut (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing 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:Salva Dut 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) 11:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Yooo I remember you! Anyway, I kinda expected that. I made it quickly, and I made it at school. I made it because as a class we read a long walk to water so I was excited to learn that Salva was a real person and the book was not fiction! I looked him up on Wikipedia as I am chronically on Wikipedia and I found it was a redirect :/

I made it quickly.and I did not include many citations. Thank you for declining my article so I can make it better :D!

Petjayso (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petjayso,

You made a good start. Here are some more sources you can use: [1], [2] [3]. I also added a citation for the book you mentioned. You might want to add a sentence or two about what Salva actually did. Remember to use your own words, and not copy from the sources. Please let me know if you need help, and keep up the good work! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am on the road to 500 edits. This will help :D Petjayso (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Also said this at the helpdesk.
Don't add your own pictures, or address or phone number or social media handles. Internet is not a safe place, and anything you save here becomes public and will stay with you your whole life. Let your older self make those decisions for you. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and seriously consider removing any personal information you've made available. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	In recognition of your continued improvement as an editor, and you persistence to always learn more and do what's right. Onwards and upwards! Panini! • 🥪 03:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you on the help desk because of the cat image you posted there. I too have cats that fight often. Panini! • 🥪 03:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini! Thank you! This is my first barn star and I was not expecting this! And, I will admit my edits were *bad* in the beginning, and I have tried to improve. Thank you! Petjayso (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petjayso Don't beat yourself up too much over it! So were mine, and so were everyone else's. Panini! • 🥪 03:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini! Hey, that's a good page! Petjayso (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini! If I edited Wikipedia 4 years ago, I would be editing the same things you are. Petjayso (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Hi Petjayso, I'm Firefly. You'll likely not be pleased about this but I have removed some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thank you, and sorry for messing about with your edits! firefly ( t · c ) 14:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok? I guess. I mean, "too much" sounds a bit exaggerated. My age and the state I live in, alright. Thank you for acknowledging it. Petjayso (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Andrevan may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' user pages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on user page etiquette. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman Ah yes, I see where you are coming from. On his page he said that anyone could put anything (appropriate I assume) in that box. I assumed that the other images were from other users who put them there, but I haven't checked.... Jayson (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my reversion of you. It seems Andrevan did invite your editing. That's an unusual thing which is why I reverted you without considering why. Never mind, I guess. Just don't edit anyone else's user pages. Have fun. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman Thank you for considering his user page, and defending it against vandals! Thank you for considering my edit quality and thank you for realising his strange user page policy and philosophy! Have a good night-or rest of your day? Time zones are weird. Jayson (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Salva Dut

Hello, Jayson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Salva Dut, 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) 20:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]