Al Kameen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:
These references aren't independent. We need in depth coverage by independent 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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LightStep and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:LightStep, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Freezejunk!
Having an article 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! Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Freezejunk! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Mole's World vs. Mole Manor, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Hello, Freezejunk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alexa Megan C., 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OlifanofmrTennant 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:Lee Bird 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheTechie was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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:ClimateAi 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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:ClimateAi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$00:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paid editing
Hello Freezejunk, I noticed that you disclosed being hired by a few individual and companies for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, you didn't provide a link to your profile where you advertise your paid editing services. This information is necessary for transparency, as outlined in WP:PAID. Could you please share the link to where you advertise your paid editing services? Thank you, GSS💬12:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could you please disclose '"all" your paid edits? Your contributions here and on your Upwork profile do not match. You need to disclose every job you have taken, whether they are marked as completed or are still in progress. GSS💬07:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have disclosed all work I have done as far as editing goes by myself personally. The other stuff you see are either consulting jobs, pages that never got made, clients who used others to post and in some cases the job has "Wikipedia" in the title, but because the subject did not qualify, I ended up making Everybodywiki, Fandom or Wikitia pages for them. So not all jobs are actually Wikipedia and my profile can be misleading. Also I had some jobs that I outsourced, before I started my own account. Freezejunk (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. First, you need to explain why you changed your Upwork username after posting the link on your user page. Then, you must disclose your previous account and any other accounts you are using, keeping in mind that I am already aware of them. Lastly, you need to disclose all your past and current paid work, as I have reviewed all of it. GSS💬06:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my user ID so that can include my name because the previous one was just something random generate by Upwork. I've updated my user page accordingly. As for other accounts, I've previously mentioned that this is the only account I personally use. Before I knew how to do edits myself, I outsourced my edits to a Bangladeshi individual who later taught me how to make wiki edits and pages. He used the accounts "Marnie Hawes" and "Mommmyy," although I'm not obligated to disclose these since they weren’t my accounts. According to policy, I'm required to list all paid edits made from my account on my user page, which I have done. I'm not responsible for disclosing any paid work not posted by myself; that responsibility lies with the original poster. "Marnie Hawes" did disclose some of his paid edits, but not all, which might have led to his ban. Initially, I wasn't aware that paid editing had to be disclosed; or even what a sock puppet is, otherwise, I would have instructed him to comply with all policies. Needless to say I parted ways with him and started my own account and ever since I have been complying with all polices. If you have any further concerns, please let me know. Freezejunk (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This account was created in January 2022, but your first paid editing job on Upwork was in August 2019, which was marked as completed and reviewed by your client. In your portfolio, you claimed, "The client wanted me to add references to articles of different niches. Most of those articles were academic and scientific research papers. My responsibility was to make those articles more informative." However, those edits were made by Marnie Hawes(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who was blocked for spamming by MER-C. Could you explain that? Additionally, could you provide details about the most recent jobs you were hired for, specifically those that involve "Online reputation management for ..."? GSS💬08:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned, I did not personally post earlier jobs; I drafted them and had someone else post them. I have disclosed all jobs that I posted on Wiki. I'm currently involved in two Wiki consulting jobs that don’t require posting, hence no disclosure is necessary. These jobs are purely consultative to determine eligibility for a Wiki page. I also have a pending Wiki job that is currently on hold; it will be disclosed if and when posted. Additionally, I provide online reputation management services, including creating positive content and managing social media profiles, PR, articles, blogs, and websites, as well as removing negative content and reviews, none of which involve Wikipedia. Some of my previous jobs that mention Wikipedia were actually related to other wiki sites (everybodywiki, etc). This is becoming frustrating, and given that you are not an admin, I'm uncertain of your authority to question me. I will not respond to further questions unless an admin is involved. Feel free to request an admin review if you believe I've done anything wrong. I'm open to hearing your concerns, but I will not respond to further queries from someone who isn’t an admin and lacks the authority to interrogate me. Freezejunk (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to ask more questions because I have already collected enough evidence to prove that user "Marnie Hawes" belongs to you. GSS💬11:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned previously, "Marnie Hawes" was the individual to whom I outsourced my work before I learned to make edits myself. He also provided training. It might seem like that was my account, but I assure you it was not. Additionally, it's impossible that you have any evidence to suggest otherwise.
While "Marnie Hawes" may have violated policies, those actions were beyond my control and not my responsibility. I am a fully compliant editor, having disclosed all my paid edits and responded to all your inquiries, despite having no obligation to answer questions from someone who isn't an admin. Please, I would appreciate it if you could focus your efforts on actual violators who fail to disclose paid edits, as that would be a more productive use of your time. Freezejunk (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have waited long enough. I assume the admins have found no issues. If there is any investigation, I am willing to comply. Please provide a link to the investigation or a statement from an admin. Otherwise, stop reversing my changes, or I will report this to the appropriate authorities. Freezejunk (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how long you've waited. The team's case is still in process, and they are working on it. Please wait for someone to get back to you. In the meantime, stop submitting your paid work for review repeatedly. Additionally, you need to unprotect your Upwork profile so it can be reviewed. GSS💬03:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to feel like intimidation. I have reviewed all the policies and found no requirement to make my profile public. The only requirements are to disclose my profile link and to state my Wiki account on Upwork. If there is something I am missing, please direct me to the specific policy. My profile should be visible to those who hire me or have an Upwork account.
Regarding the admin review, could you please request the reviewing admin(s) to send me a message, since you are not an admin yourself? How do I know the review is still ongoing? Aren't these investigations publicly posted? Please have someone else confirm, or I will have no choice but to report your behavior. Freezejunk (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GSS was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:ClimateAi 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.
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. 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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
