Hi Notadogbutafish! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Decentralized finance, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Sunisa Lee, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Adakiko (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Okay. Can you help me with reliable sources? So I can become aware of sources I can use and sources that I can't.Notadogbutafish (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notadogbutafish. 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:Notadogbutafish. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Notadogbutafish|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. David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Gerard? Please I have never been paid nor compensated for all the edits I've made so far on Wikipedia. I've gone through the links attached to your post on my talk page and will always abide by them. But again, I was not paid nor compensated for any edits that I've made so far on Wikipedia. I look forward to hearing from you so that I can make edits in the future. Notadogbutafish (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, your edits come across as strongly promotional, and on this sole subject. You may wish to find other subjects to edit on, and not touch this one - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on EverGrow coin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, EverGrow coin, is not suitable as written to remain published, as it is not clear that the article's subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and especially Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) § Cryptocurrencies. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. --JBchrch talk 02:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Ok. Thank you. Notadogbutafish (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ava Addams 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/Ava Addams (6th nomination) 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.

• Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notadogbutafish. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to April Livingston, 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:Notadogbutafish. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Notadogbutafish|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. Vexations (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vexations, I haven't been compensated nor paid by anyone for the edits that I've made on Wikipedia. Please notify me so that I can continue making edits on Wikipedia. Notadogbutafish (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notadogbutafish, you have added information that is unreferenced and not easily found using simple internet searches. If you received that information from the subject, you very likely have a conflict of interest. If you did find it by yourself, please cite your sources.Vexations (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Vexations, there's no WP:COI as I didn't receive information from the subject. The only part that isn't referenced was the film list section which was gotten from her iMDB profile and from the iMDB pages of the movies. Notadogbutafish (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source, but where did you get the Curatorial works section from? Vexations (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added the references to the Curatorial works section. Notadogbutafish (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question, and there is still very much a question of how you get from a source like [1] "Alabama School of Mathematics and Science: Rachel Wright, Rene Culler, Leah Nichols, April Livingston, Sol Davis, James Conlon, Stephen Savage, Pinky Bass, Russell Goodloe, Joe Hobbs." to your text: "Organiser, Curator, and Public Relations Specialist- The University of Mobile Photo/Art Shows 2011 – Current". So, just HOW do you know that? Because the source doesn't say that. Vexations (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that. I got that from her personal site but I can just remove that as I can't find a secondary source. Notadogbutafish (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at her website, but didn't see it. Where exactly did you find it? Vexations (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit needs to be reworded. He can't be Indian if he was born and raised in Canada. May be Indian origin is better, but still when you add to living persons' pages, always cite reliable sources Hemanthah (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sciencefish. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jasmit Phulka, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that to add that he is Indian, although born canadian, you would need a source in which he identifies himself as indian, or a source that states he has indian citizenship. See WP:RAE Sciencefish (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood. Notadogbutafish (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited One Disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Prince. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fabio Blanco 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/Fabio Blanco 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.

BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit because you were not adding new info as you claimed. In fact, you restored a bunch of old text and sources previously added by a confirmed sockpuppet. --SVTCobra 23:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ugochukwu75 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 17:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]