User talk:Allison Owen

This is Allison Owen'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: Jason Blazakis (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Jason Blazakis may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allison Owen! 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello Allison Owen. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Jason Blazakis, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Allison Owen. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Allison Owen|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the formal declaration on your user page that you are being paid for this article Fiddle Faddle 00:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Jason Blazakis. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. As previously warned, do not remove the decline messages left by previous reviewers. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Draft:Jason Blazakis. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at Draft:Jason Blazakis, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Blazakis (March 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 Timtrent 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:

With three references giving 404 errors or similar, and the other being primary sources this draft cannot be accepted. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

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:Jason Blazakis 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:Jason Blazakis, 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.
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 Faddle 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Blazakis (March 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 Hatchens 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Kindly read WP:NOTCV. -

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:Jason Blazakis 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:Jason Blazakis, 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.
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.

Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Blazakis (March 10)

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:

The sourcing is inadequate to verify the gentleman's notability. We really should not have to a paid editor how to create an acceptable draft with proper referencing. So I will simply state what is required:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today

Please do not resubmit without attending to the referencing and the banners placed in the draft by other editors.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jason Blazakis 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:Jason Blazakis, 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.
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 Faddle 00:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete review history

The review history remains as part of the history of the draft. Removing it is unhelpful to further reviews and is not allowed. Indeed I have just re-reviewed the draft because I had forgotten I declined it formally only the other day. It is not a checklist that you may delete as soon as you are done with it. Any further removal of reviews will be considered to be disruptive editing. This is a type of editing behaviour that often results in the loss of editing privileges (0.95 probability) for increaisng lengths of time. You should consider this to be a level 1 warning. Fiddle Faddle 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Blazakis

(@Curb Safe Charmer:)

Why do you believe that I am conducting disruptive editing?

@Allison Owen: Several reasons:

On 8 March you removed another reviewer's decline message, which was clearly marked , which disrupts the workings of the Articles for Creation process. On 10 March, that reviewer re-reviewed the draft, declined it, and left the edit summary "Restoring prior decline. I had a feeling I had reviewed this draft before. I ought to have looked at the history rather than re-reviewed. Can't be helped now". On 11 March, you did the same thing again! I restored those messages, and left an edit summary that said "As per the message left on your user talk page, do not remove the decline messages left by previous reviewers. Doing so is a form of disruptive editing."
On 9 March, I removed the list of published works from the draft, and in my edit summary I explained "per Wikipedia:ELLIST". On 11 March, you re-added that section, with no explanation. Later that day I removed the section again, with the edit summary "per WP:ELLIST". On 16 March, you added the section back, with no explanation. Later that day, I removed it for a third time, explaining "Wikipedia articles should not include extensive lists of external links like you have included here. I have deleted this twice and you keep adding it back. See WP:ELLIST." Keeping on undoing something, especially without engaging with other editors, is considered disruptive.
Reviewers have added which were intended to guide you on how to improve the article and you have removed them without making those improvements.
You have re-submitted the draft without making the improvements outlined by previous reviewers, which wastes their time.

Do you not see how that behaviour is disruptive?

Since you are paid but we are volunteers, we have little patience for you wasting our time.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(@Curb Safe Charmer:)

Thank you for explaining that to me, yes I do now see that my behavior was disruptive. My apologies. Now that I understand the process, I will not do any of the behavior that you listed.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wiki Page Blazakis.png

A tag has been placed on File:Wiki Page Blazakis.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/people/jason-blazakis. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Jason Blazakis has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jason Blazakis. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Blazakis (April 6)

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

I am going to break my self imposed rule of not performing multiple reviews on the same draft. I only reviewed it twice because you removed the review history. I am reviewing it this third time precisely because you appear unwilling to grasp what is required with referencing for an article here.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. My firm belief is that this run of the mill consultant/academic has not been proven to be notable. Since you are being paid to write this I can only assume that he knows he is not notable.

Tell him. please: "If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your professional reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:GNG does that."

As to treating his work as a reference, let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely.

There will come a point when a reviewer will look at this draft and call a halt. My belief is that this will be at the next submission if you submit it again with WP:REFBOMB and as WP:ADMASQ.

We amateur reviewers are highly protective of Wikipedia. Paid editors are expected to hit the ground running. We do not have the will to educate those who earn money from editing an amateur project to edit better.

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:Jason Blazakis 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:Jason Blazakis, 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.
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 Faddle 08:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of your paid editing declaration

I note you have blanked Draft:Jason Blazakis. It will be deleted soon. However, removal of your paid editing declaration is not appropriate. It needs to remain on your user page. It signifies that, should an article on Blazakis reappear, you have been/will be/might be/etc paid for any edits you make on it. @Curb Safe Charmer has replaced it for you. Please do not remove it again. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jason Blazakis

Hello, Allison Owen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jason Blazakis, 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) 05:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]