User talk:Johnnydeadline

This is Johnnydeadline'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: R.J. Shook (January 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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:

None of the Forbes articles are reliable because they are sponsored content or are written by contributors rather than staff (see WP:FORBESCON) so should not be used. The following are also not reliable: commercial sites that sell products of offer services such Amazon, Abe books and Shook Research, press releases and links to Dropbox are not acceptable. Interviews or sources that that largely rely on what Shook or those affiliated with him say are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability.

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:R.J. Shook 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.

S0091 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnnydeadline! 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! S0091 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Johnnydeadline! Your additions to Draft:R.J. Shook have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Rj shook New2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rj shook New2.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.shookresearch.com/ot-rj-shook.html. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:R.J. Shook has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:R.J. Shook. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:R.J. Shook

I moved the extended comments to the draft's talk page, except for the comment that was part of my original decline, because it was getting messy so please use the talk page going forward. I will also ping you there. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where can i find them? here? Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Draft talk:R.J. Shook. Every page on Wikipedia has an associated talk page with a link underneath the title, "Talk". S0091 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: R.J. Shook (April 13)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:BLP. Statements, starting with the date of birth, need to be sourced or removed. The entire personal life section is unsourced.

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:R.J. Shook 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.

Greenman (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of RJ Shook and confusion about Forbes[edit source]

Wikipedia (WP:FORBESCON) is confusing Forbes Magazine with Forbes.com. It is incorrectly disallowing all stories related to Forbes because Forbes.com publishes some sponsored content. First, Forbes.com is NOT all sponsored content. Some of it is, and some of it is not. Other stories are exact replicas of what appears in the magazine, Forbes. For some reason, wikipedia is disallowing anything that is published that references Forbes. I am sourcing Forbes magazine. This content is produced and edited by journalists, not by advertisers and marketers. I would like to appeal that this content be allowed as a source. Can you help me? Thank you, JohnnyDeadline Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnnydeadline: not all Forbes content is disallowed, there's also WP:FORBES. I suggest following up on the specific talk page if you think an editor has made a mistake confusing the two. Greenman (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find the specific talk page. I am a bit confused by all this. I can't seem to get movement on a page. I have removed all the Forbes.com sources but it is being held back because of a previous edit, now being cited by new administrators who have viewed the re-submission. Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Forbes.com content and based the sources only on Forbes Magazine. But the Wiki is still being rejected, in part, because of Forbes association with Forbes.com. I am not sure how to remove the blockade. Any advice you have I would be appreciated. What might be the specific talk page where I should followup? Thank you, Mark Johnnydeadline (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Johnnydeadline (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection 2 of R.J. Shook

I have sourced the items in the biography box on R.J. Shook Wiki draft. The sources are R.J. Shook and his father. I choose his father as the primary source. This is noted in the box. I deleted his birthday even though it was correctly stated. As previously mentioned, Forbes.com has been removed as a source - southing S00091 was critical of. I have replaced these references with references from Forbes Magazine written by editors and reporters there. Additional sources have been added regarding R.J. Shook's philanthropy, background and authorship. Since his books are directly related to his business, SHOOK Research, it is relevant to have both in the same Wiki. His books are quoted in the Wiki as a primary source. R.J. Shook is relevant and worthy of a Wiki since he is the only individual who ranks financial advisors and does not receive compensation for this service. He built a research model to help accomplish this task. No one else doe this. The except is Barron's, which bought R.J.'s former business. This is noted in the Wiki. Thank you. Johnnydeadline (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:R.J. Shook has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:R.J. Shook. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the interview source since another admin asked me to source where the data was received. The source was R.J.'s father, who is a primary source. He has first-hand knowledge of his son, his birth, where he grew up and went to School. It was not added for notability. So, I am not really sure what you asking here. Thanks, JohnnyDeadline. Johnnydeadline (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other notation. There is a lot of inconsistency when it comes to this gang-editing approach deployed by Wikipedia. Some people do not even understand a primary vs. second source. Others confuse Forbes Magazine with Forbes.com. It is very inconsistent and uneven. For editing or comments to be useful, they need to be clear and consistent. Best wishes, JD Johnnydeadline (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking to lecture Wikipedia editors on how they should approach your work is tilting at windmills. I suggest that you abstain from that manner of commentary.

Perhaps you may find it useful to be made aware that paid editors such as yourself are tolerated rather than welcomed, and that they are expected to get it right, primarily because they are paid.

Wikipedia started as a fully amateur project. Paid editors used to be blocked on discovery. Nowadays there is a mechanism which allows their contributions. However, no-one is obliged to hand-hold paid editors. My own view is that a person writing here for pay is 'entitled' to one review which declines their work once. Their resubmission ought to be perfect. Why? Because they are being paid. Once a paid editor becomes a timesink they very quickly wear out their welcome.

I see with your own editing you have had two copyright problems, one here and one on Wikimedia Commons. Those are not things a professional, paid, editor should have had. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: R.J. Shook (August 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 Timtrent 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 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It's hard to work out whether you are writing about Shook, the person, or Shook's businesses. You have conflated the two. Either, both, or neither may be notable. Decide, please, what you are writing about. You are being paid for your work here, so please earn your hire.

Thirty eight references for circa 14 paragraphs is tantamount to WP:BOMBARD. You also have WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox). This inline linking is prevalent in the books section and makes this appear to be a link farm for book sales. Use {{ISBN}} instead

Cut anything out that does not add value

Please do not add commentary using the {{AFC comment}} template. These are not for dialogue between you and the reviewers. Your work is your dialogue.

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:R.J. Shook 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:JohnnyDeadline

Hello, Johnnydeadline. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:JohnnyDeadline, 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) 04:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:JohnnyDeadline

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

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!} 03:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]