User talk:Redacter

January 2016

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leeann Tweeden

I have reverted your edit at Leeann Tweeden. Your sources, particularly The Improper Magazine, are not reliable and are not appropriate for use in a WP:BLP. When an actual reliable source repeats the theory that the photos were photoshopped, then by all means cite that in the article, but the sourcing for BLPs needs to be impeccable and The Improper doesn't cut it. Further to that, the following message is a reminder that discretionary sanctions have been authorized by the Arbitration Committee with regards to BLP edits. You should not re-instate that content without significantly improved sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (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 Ingenuity 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 User:Redacter/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.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Redacter! 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! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Redacter

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Redacter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Redacter (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girard Entertainment & Media LLC owns the trademark to "The New York Independent." The info added to this page reflecting that keeps getting deleted. As such, whomever is deleting it is violating our trademark. Please have someone get back to me as soon as possible to avoid bringing in our attorney on this. Redacter (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a work in progress and will be updated to conform to Wikipedia standards. Perhaps it should be listed as a draft until the changes can take place and the page can be reviewed. Redacter (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there were other reasons why the page was unsuitable.

Wikipedia content needs to be written from a neutral point of view, which was anything but the case with the pages you have created: they were written as laudatory encomiums, full of gushing praise. In fact they were written from start to finish in the style used by marketing or PR people.
It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Certainly we can't accept text previously published on a web site which has a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved", as in the case of material you have posted

It also seems probable that you were writing about yourself. If so you should read Wikipedia's guideline on autobiographies, and perhaps also the guideline on "conflict of interest". JBW (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote the above message I have seen your editing of the article The Independent (New York City). You should certainly, not just perhaps, read the guideline on conflict of interest before you do any more editing related to yourself. JBW (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girard Entertainment & Media LLC owns the trademark to "The New York Independent." The info added to this page reflecting that keeps getting deleted. As such, whomever is deleting it is violating our trademark. Please have someone get back to me as soon as possible to avoid bringing in our attorney on this. Redacter (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC) I have read the guidelines on conflict of interest. If you feel I'm violating them in any way please specifically state the nature of the violation. You seem to be concerned about a "conflict of interest." If so, please explain.[reply]