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

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.

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:

This is poliicaldvocacy. Hewill beoable enoughfor a WP:NPOV article, if -- and only if -- he wins the general election.

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:Joey De Jesus 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:Joey De Jesus, 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, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zefrrr! 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! DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zefrrr, hope all is well and that you are staying safe. Your recent revisions have raised suspicion of not following Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three."^[1]

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Please follow the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, as we are all trying to create a free, accurate, and unbiased encyclopedia for all.

Hello, can you please explain what did you revert my edit on Jennifer page without any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbrooks89 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)). Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

most of my edits were reverting what seemed to be whitewashing attempts of a public figure; the IP socking was just due to not having logged in to wikipedia across browsers and was fully unintentional. That said, I've taken this criticism and will make sure not to make these errors in the future. Zefrrr (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close. As no admin has taken you up on this in more than two weeks, I am declining this. Feel free to make another request, but make sure that it follows the guide to appealing blocks and is substantially different from your past requests. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:16, 8 July 2020 (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.

Manure. You wrote one candidate's article and then you showed up as an IP to add negative material on one they are running against. "most of my edits were reverting what seemed to be whitewashing attempts" No. You added negative material as an IP and then used your IP to revert and then used your account, too. All of this after having your draft declined twice as political advocacy but you did a runaround the next day to create the article anyway. Wikipedia does not want you nor your contributions. It is not possible to impart integrity to someone that does not have it. "the IP socking was just due to not having logged in to wikipedia across browsers and was fully unintentional." Utter bullshit and any checkuser will see that you used the same browser. We don't want your kind...it is like the Russian assholes that tampered in the last election. No thanks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zefrrr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joey De Jesus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zefrrr. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joey De Jesus".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]