User talk:Juliesmith45458

Welcome![edit]

Hi Juliesmith45458! I noticed your contributions to Hair coloring and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Tacyarg (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. [1] MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a link , vice.com and I contacted Wikipedia in regards to this link, as you stated, personal or spammy links are not allowed. This vice.com link has articles for "gamming", and that really has nothing to do with PCOS. The link I posted was to a comprehensive article related to PCOS. As I stated, before, the link I placed on this article was to help other who have PCOS and fill the gaps in this article. I added a citation, it was not an External link. The goal was to help inform not improve the search engine ranking of this particular website. Also, please tell me your affiliation with Wikipedia, for my own knowledge? Juliesmith45458 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating what MrOllie attempted to explain to you: the source you added is a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. You may not use somebody's blog as a reference in an article—especially in an article on a medical topic. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though vice.com, is a blog as well. Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I was asking the question, why vice.com was allowed on the PCOS article and my article was not? Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vice.com is not a blog. There is no consensus on whether vice.com is reliable, but it does at least have an editorial staff. On the other hand, embraceyouhealth dot com is a website hosted by one individual. She may be educated in the field, but she is one individual. There is no editorial review, so it is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just tried to find any info on the editorial staff, but I couldn't. Can you please send me a link or point me in the right direction as to the editorial staff? Juliesmith45458 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so concerned about Vice? —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can explain this to me I would appreciate it? I just would like to know why? Juliesmith45458 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Doreenmoore2222 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doreenmoore2222. 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) 10:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Insert your reason to be unblocked here Juliesmith45458 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

{{unblock|Insert your reason to be unblocked here Juliesmith45458 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2022 (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).

Juliesmith45458 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Juliesmith45458 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not sure why you thought writing "Insert your reason to be unblocked here" would get you unblocked, but it won't. Those are the instructions. You're supposed to follow instructions, not copy-paste them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2022 (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.

Asking for an unblock, because it took a while for my question to get answered as to another as to why a blog couldn't be used as a citation, unless it's a well-known seasoned blog. There was another user that posted citations from the website I was trying to cite. That other user is now retired, and is no longer posting. That's why I'm asking for an unblock because I don't feel this account should continue to be blocked.