User talk:TracieC

Welcome!

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 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 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.

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:TracieC/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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TracieC! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 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 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.

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:TracieC/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) 17:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Paul sachudhanandam per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul sachudhanandam. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request an unblock and to seek clarification regarding the recent indefinite block placed on my account. I believe there may be some confusion, and I wish to address the concerns raised. First and foremost, I would like to emphasize that I am genuinely committed to contributing valuable content to Wikipedia, particularly in the field of Western and Asian spirituality and religion, which aligns with my area of expertise. I have contributed to multiple articles and, in the spirit of collaboration, I have been open to suggestions and feedback on my drafts and references. I would like to bring to your attention that my block came without prior warning, discussion, or clear guidance on the specific improvements needed for my articles. This has left me somewhat perplexed. The subject I was working on already exists in various other languages such as Polish, Punjabi, Urdu, and Western Punjabi. I believed that providing an English-language version of this subject would be valuable and in line with Wikipedia's mission of making information accessible to a global audience. I was working on addressing concerns about notability by refining references when, suddenly, I was blocked indefinitely. Additionally, I would like to raise a valid point regarding the subject's notability. If the subject is considered notable and relevant enough to warrant inclusion in other languages such as Polish, Punjabi, Urdu, and Western Punjabi versions of Wikipedia, it raises questions about why the subject is being deemed not relevant in English. Notability should not be language-specific, and information that is valuable and significant in one language should hold similar importance in another. Wikipedia is a global platform, and information should be made accessible to a diverse audience without discrimination based on language. In the context of the subject, it appears that creating a page in English Wikipedia has been unjustly blocked, hindering the dissemination of valuable information, and I would appreciate your assistance in addressing this matter. I kindly request that you reconsider the indefinite block on my account and provide me with guidance on how I can improve my articles to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am open to constructive criticism and committed to ensuring my contributions align with Wikipedia's mission. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you for your assistance.

Decline reason:

I very much appreciate the politeness and civility of your request, but ... it does nothing to address that you were blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. You need to address that issue. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2023 (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.

Why do I feel like this was AI generated? Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]