User talk:Blackan007

Hi there. On WIkipedia, we have policies and guidelines outlining what you can and cannot have on your userpage. As you seemed to be attempting to create a draft article, I have moved it to Draft:Daniel Jeddman. You can work on it there. Happy editing! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the help. I appreciate. Will do my best.. Keep monitoring and correct me. Dankeschön Blackan007 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackan007. The nature of your edits 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:Blackan007. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Blackan007|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. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont intend to manipulate anything on here. Infact, Im aswell learning a lot as I work for client. The relationship between I and client is cordial and he is a public figure who deserves to be recognized. I will oblige and adhere to the rules so article may be accepted. The point of correctin on the third paragraph is of essence.

Thank you for observation. Blackan007 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Jeddman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Jeddman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been paid to work. This took time and research to come this far. Addressing my work in such a manner is somewhat harsh and disrespectful. If there's a correction to make based on your discretion, you can prompt my attention rather than raising a concern to delete which is rather disturbing. I look up to you.

Thank you. Blackan007 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consider to assist me do necessary corrections to client if possible rather than deletion. My plea to this matter. Had a sleepless night regarding when I received the notification. I'm trying to figure out what went wrong exactly. I've made some possible corrections to date formats, removed the part of his book publishing, Put God First (whereby I didn't emphatically declared he's released yet, but soon). Therefore his books are not yet in Amazon or any store yet but there are references he posted towards that prompted my attention, my bad.

Kindly consider helping resolve any issues to retain position of article.

Thank you. Blackan007 (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also stand to declare all information and articles attributed to client Daniel Jeddman is nothing but the truth. You may as well check all reference points to verify. The evidence of subpar is null. Unless therefore there's a specific point of view in a justifiable inclusion. Blackan007 (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the content of the article: that can be cleaned up. The reason the article has been nominated is due to the subject, Daniel Jeddman, and whether or not he merits inclusion on Wikipedia. It does not matter if you have cited only the facts (we expect that), but whether the article's subject is notable. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. When I was given the task by client in discussion, I did a thorough search at least before I involved my handprint to this work. As long as he's been involved in working with famous people, he would as well get famous and rub shoulders with them. You can check his socials, statistics and more as well.

He's one of the promising stars to be discovered to the world stage. I have personally read his upcoming book "Put God First", and certainly know what he carries. I hope everyone gets to know him on a bigger platform to learn from him. Blackan007 (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People mostly become exponentially famous after their dead. I believe celebrating the living whilst they achieve gradually pays off at the end of the day. Daniel Jeddman I can boldly say is a future asset to Wikipedia. Blackan007 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to those arguements, I would advise taking a look at these three policies. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that future arguements should be made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Jeddman, though please see our policies on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the elaboration. Blackan007 (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2023 (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 Hey man im josh was:

Article has not been improved upon enough when compared to the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Jeddman. The changes essentially boil down to the lead being trimmed a bit and 4 references being added to an already referenced sentence.

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:Daniel Jeddman 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.

Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blackan007! 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! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2023 (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 WikiOriginal-9 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 music-related topics). 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:Daniel Jeddman 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.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Draft:Daniel Jeddman 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.

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Daniel Jeddman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Daniel-Jeddman-biography-1916612. 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. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackan007! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source. You must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. Read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Our policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]