Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 KylieTastic 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 User:Petjayso/sandbox 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) 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Petjayso! 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) 20:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Theroadislong 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:

lacking in reliable 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Petjayso/sandbox 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Petjayso. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Debbie Critchfield, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((request edit)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, 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.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoingBatty I understand, I just met her once and I need to make this article. It's about time someone made one for her! Petjayso (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:

There are no independent sources - see WP:POLITICIAN.

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:Debbie Critchfield 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) 20:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not aware that I did such a thing lol. I was also not aware that there was such a rule on Wikipedia. Thank you for notifying me. Petjayso (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait a minute. I was not overlinking. There were links for Android and iOS already, but there were so for the Consoles that had Among Us aswell. In the same section. Why remove the links I added when you did not remove the other links? Idk its just not making a whole lot of sense to me. Petjayso (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Bonadea was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Also written like a personal profile, in an unencyclopedic tone – that could be fixed by editing, but the lack of notability can't.

bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bonadea Uhhh, other editors HAVE claimed that Debbie IS notable. She is in a statewide position Petjayso (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the AfC Petjayso (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources show zero notability. --bonadea contributions talk 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bonadea Huh? the Petjayso (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops typo. Ballptpedia is a reliable source Petjayso (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bonadea Her predecessors had articles Petjayso (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]