User talk:Penelopechicken123

This is Penelopechicken123'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: Penelope the Chicken (February 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet 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:Penelope the Chicken 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Penelopechicken123! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Penelopechicken123, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Meszzy² (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Penelope the Chicken (February 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by KylieTastic was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Penelope the Chicken

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Draft:Penelope the Chicken, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. KylieTastic (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Sandals Resorts, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bar Harel (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jwycesska Island, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You're citing wikiwand inside wikipedia...? Bar Harel (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am just wondering how would I find a reliable source then? Penelopechicken123 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwand is a website that shows Wikipedia. You basically wrote that the statements are true because they're written in Wikipedia. See the link for a reliable source. In this case it can be a governmental agency or a respected news source. Bar Harel (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand so if like there was information on CBS or a US government site, that is a reliable source? And I just learned that wikiwand is just a copy of wikipedia, thanks for telling me. I just joined, figuring it out. Thanks. Penelopechicken123 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, pretty much. You can see WP:SOURCETYPES for more info. You're welcome and keep up the good work! Bar Harel (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sparetime Recreation

Hello, Penelopechicken123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sparetime Recreation, 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) 16:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 12 August 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).

Penelopechicken123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea why I was blocked in the first place, I am simply trying to help. I don't know if I got hacked and someone put something wrong down but all I am trying to do is help. Penelopechicken123 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As your claim your account may be compromised, it is now blocked indefinitely. Please follow the guidance at WP:COMPROMISED as suggested below. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 13 August 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.

I've extended the block duration to indefinite in light of the statement above that this account may have been compromised - please see Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. You are welcome to create a new account. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for a valid reason for me being blocked. And extending the block duration is completely unacceptable and I will be talking to somebody else about this. Penelopechicken123 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you say that your account may have been compromised, it's actually Wikipedia's policy to indef block your account. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when will I be unblocked now? Penelopechicken123 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As we have no idea who is using this account given you have stated that it may have been compromised, it won't be unblocked. You may create a new account if you wish. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is suggested anywhere that compromised account users should just create a new account. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: please see WP:HACKED#Regaining account access (" As it may not be possible to prove that an account has been returned you may have to start afresh") Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Start afresh" links to WP:COMPROMISED which does not advise just creating a new account, but contacting a checkuser or steward. Quite often(not saying this is the case here) people simply claim their account is compromised to avoid scrutiny and telling them to just create a new account essentially invites them to evade their block. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what this user said was "I don't know if I got hacked and someone put something wrong down"; the only thing I see that even vaguely looks like vandalism is this wee piece of disruption. Otherwise, a look at the reverted contributions from this user shows mostly insufficient sourcing, and a the deleted contributions show couple of silly articles deleted as abandoned drafts. Feels very bitey to me. I'd be curious to hear an explanation as to what that edit to WWII was about. And this user better not even try to use the new account they created; it won't help. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]