User talk:EagleSleuth

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

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.

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:

Social media is unreliable, so refs 2, 6 and 11 should be removed.

Ref 12: Per WP:RYM 'The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.'

The WP:CITEKILL in the lede and the final paragraph of 'Career' is totally unacceptable, maximum of 2 cites is fine

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:Troy Bronson Actor 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.

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 08:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EagleSleuth! 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! - RichT|C|E-Mail 08:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on John Gowans Actor, 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. Fram (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

You appear to have a close connection to the subject on Wikipedia that raises concerns about a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Even if you are not being paid, you are expected to disclose any close connection with the subject of the article, using the connected contributor template.

For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Deb (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks as if you are using Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to write or correct your posts (both your comments and your articles). This is seriously discouraged on Wikipedia, as we want to hear from you, not from a very longwinded bot (for talk page messages), and because they often get things terribly wrong and/or people get things wrong when using the LLM output (e.g. in Draft:Rory Keane, you inadvertently copied over the text "Certainly, here are the references formatted with the provided links:" from the bot output). Fram (talk) 12:34, 7 February 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 GoingBatty 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:

See my comment on the draft talk page.

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:Troy Bronson 2024 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.

GoingBatty (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Troy Bronson 2024. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EagleSleuth. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rory Keane, 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) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding this information. IMDB is not a reliable source. See WP:IMBD. Also, please see WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:17, 31 March 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was autoblocked because my IP was associated with the recent block on the account EagleSleuth. I’m requesting review because the edit in question followed WP:V, was discussed on the Talk page, and was supported by multiple reliable and visual sources. I’ve opened a case at ANI for proper community review and administrator conduct concerns. EagleSleuth (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The autoblock is irrelevant (and correct and automatic.) You're blocked because you haven't been responding to the advice not to use IMDB as a source, and because you've been edit warring against those who are following Wikipedia policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:08, 1 April 2025 (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.

EagleSleuth (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]