User talk:J97indigegov24

Joseph P. Kalt moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Joseph P. Kalt, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look. Onel 5969  TT me 13:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I appreciate these instructions immensely. I'll have time this month to return to this draft and add the appropriate citations. I'll ping you when I think it's ready. Thanks again! Jpk bio (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Joseph P. Kalt


Hello, Jpk bio. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joseph P. Kalt".

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. When 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. ✗ plicit  02:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

February 2024
 Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must: To do this, post the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
 * Provide a new username.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "Indefinite" is not permanent. It just means that there is no set time period for the blocking. It is standard practice for several types of blocking reasons, one of them being username violations. By your username and admittance, you have a conflict of interest in writing about the subject, so you should read, understand, and comply with WP:COI. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have renamed your account from Jpk bio to J97indigegov24. I have looked at the draft article you created, and while it could certainly do with some editing to give it a more neutral tone, I don't see it as grossly promotional., what would you say to unblocking the account, if the editor will agree to make sure to follow the conflict of interest guideline? JBW (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection to an unblock, but "This is a page for my director"? Director of what? The editor does need to understand that we take undeclared paid editing seriously, and must address any possible history of edits to other articles where I fear there may also be a conflict of interest. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Following the above message from, I am willing to consider unblocking your account if you are willing to undertake to comply with the conflict of interest guideline and related requirements. I think what you have said implies that you intend to do so, but it will avoid any risk of misunderstanding if you will say so explicitly. Also, please answer the question which Orangemike has raised: what do you mean by saying that the person you have edited about is your "director"?
 * I also think it only fair to warn you that if I unblock your account, it will mean that I am giving you a chance to work on the draft if you choose to, but it does not mean that I advise you to do so. In its present form it is not suitable as an article, and will need a lot of work. Making a new article is one of the most difficult tasks for a new editor to perform, and inexperienced editors who try to do so often have a frustrating time. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. (That is not just my opinion: some years ago a large study of editors' histories found that new editors whose first step is to try to create a new article are much less likely to stay as Wikipedia editors than those whose first step is to edit existing articles.) JBW (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with someone who provides advice when called upon based on their institutional/practitioner knowledge and who serves as a senior advisor (unpaid) of sorts? Someone whose expertise attracts all kinds of requests to join boards, task forces, commissions, etc? That describes his involvement with my team. I refer to him as my ‘director’ in my outreach to the community my organization serves because his reputation precedes him and it helps build trust. It’s loose and inaccurate albeit since he’s officially a retired professor, but it conveys the message. Do I professionally know this individual? Yes. Is he my employer? No. He’s also not family. To address the draft, if you’re familiar with academia, the draft is more or less a super short CV in a paragraph format and is intended to allow the scholar to shine as an expert in this and that. I’m not defending it but stating that’s what I’m starting with. So yes, there’s a promotional tone and that’s due to the profession. And yes, I intend to address that, to take my first reviewer Onel5969’s valuable markups to heart, to learn the policies noted today by UtherSRG, and to carry the draft through to the reviewing process and to publishing the article. My missteps are innocent but we have the same goal with publishing an article that is substantiated, is an accurate representation of the subject’s life’s work, and that supports the integrity of this platform. A note: I have experience in academia and respect incontestable research and therefore respect what this site expects. I look forward to addressing the outstanding issues, to working within the review process, to earning a way out of (account blocked) jail, to continuing a purely professional relationship with you, and to publishing this article. J97indigegov24 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an undeclared paid editing ring ring. I'll leave this to you as your brain works better than mine. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I would have preferred a more explicit statement that you undertake to comply with the conflict of interest guideline, but it seems to be implicit in what you say, so I will unblock your account. JBW (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)