![]() |
Hi Charmanderblue! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hi Charmanderblue! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
I agree with what you're saying there, but do be careful about outing. You have to say it in more vague terms. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Charmanderblue! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
ThatMontrealIP and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
help me}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad & Praxidicae
My account has been blocked on the suspicion of undisclosed paid edits to a number of articles. Some of them were in draft and pending approval after clean-up and removal of puffery from my side. A few points:
My userpage, as per WP:PAID provides a disclosure of all paid contributions done in exchange for money.
I have indicated the tag {Paid article} in the talk page of all draft articles that I had been paid to create and submit through WP:AFC, as demonstrated in: Draft_talk:Charles_Knirsch
Charmanderblue ( talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Charmanderblue ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Wrongfully blocked, possibly in connection with malformed articles previously edited without proper disclosure and lack of knowledge of WP:PAID/WP:COI that I was hired to clean up. I have disclosed all paid contributions as per WP:PAID on both my userpage and on the talk page of all draft articles pending review through AFC. These are now wrongfully tagged as UPE indicating that they have been edited in return for undisclosed payments. See this or this for an example. I do not use multiple accounts, and I do use a paid proxy by default for all internet browsing. I appeal to the sense of WP:AGF on this one.
Decline reason:
Based on GSS' email I have been able to pursue some additional avenues of investigation, and now conclude that this account is a sockpuppet (not a meatpuppet) of the blocked editor 42isthedefiniteanswer, created to evade that account's block. In particular they are not the person whose Upwork profile they linked to. Therefore, unblock declined. Making your paid editing disclosures works in your favour if you appeal your block from your original account (which I now don't believe is compromised) but this account and your proxy will remain blocked. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 22:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
{{ checkuser needed}}: A proposed response to the unblock request can be found in the history of this page. If there are no checkuser objections, please undo my undo. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In response to User:ToBeFree's proposed response: Preposterous accusations and a blatant instance of guilt by association. From the onset of the creation of this account I had disclosed that I had been paid to clean up and resubmit the malformed articles in due process. I had cleaned them up, left a message on their take pages and submitted them trough the AfC process (the previous editor had simply pushed it straight into the mainspace). I didn't "influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion" or "sway consensus" in any shape or form. I never partook in any discussion or voting in regards to the articles that had been initially flagged as UPE. Charmanderblue ( talk) 14:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ☆
Bri (
talk)
01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Charmanderblue, Please note that per WP:PAID and the WMF Terms of Use, editors editing for compensation are also required to maintain links on their userpage to any websites on which they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. GSS 💬 05:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing servicesso, since you use that profile to obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services you need to provide the link. GSS 💬 06:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Parasitic Diseases, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Praxidicae Your request for a speedy deletion has been declined. On a relative note, could you explain the logic in reverting the edits I have made to Draft:Daniel_O._Griffin and Draft:Charles_Knirsch? The edits were made in good faith, removed puffery and weasel words that were leftover from the previous UPE editor. All edits made by me were disclosed to have been paid for, yet you've reverted the drafts to the malformed state they were until I came along to clean them up and submit for an AfC (the originals were simply pushed into mainspace). Thanks. Charmanderblue ( talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.It also states
New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.Editors here have expressed concerns that you are acting in an identical fashion to a blocked editor; if the community finds this to be so, then your edits can be reverted w/o explanation. In fact since your account was created two days after the editor in question was blocked, any or all of your edits could be subject to reversion. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Marti Buckley.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Uploaded for Draft:Marti Buckley. No other use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Minorax«¦
talk¦»
06:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Charmanderblue! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hi Charmanderblue! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
I agree with what you're saying there, but do be careful about outing. You have to say it in more vague terms. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Charmanderblue! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
ThatMontrealIP and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
help me}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad & Praxidicae
My account has been blocked on the suspicion of undisclosed paid edits to a number of articles. Some of them were in draft and pending approval after clean-up and removal of puffery from my side. A few points:
My userpage, as per WP:PAID provides a disclosure of all paid contributions done in exchange for money.
I have indicated the tag {Paid article} in the talk page of all draft articles that I had been paid to create and submit through WP:AFC, as demonstrated in: Draft_talk:Charles_Knirsch
Charmanderblue ( talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Charmanderblue ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Wrongfully blocked, possibly in connection with malformed articles previously edited without proper disclosure and lack of knowledge of WP:PAID/WP:COI that I was hired to clean up. I have disclosed all paid contributions as per WP:PAID on both my userpage and on the talk page of all draft articles pending review through AFC. These are now wrongfully tagged as UPE indicating that they have been edited in return for undisclosed payments. See this or this for an example. I do not use multiple accounts, and I do use a paid proxy by default for all internet browsing. I appeal to the sense of WP:AGF on this one.
Decline reason:
Based on GSS' email I have been able to pursue some additional avenues of investigation, and now conclude that this account is a sockpuppet (not a meatpuppet) of the blocked editor 42isthedefiniteanswer, created to evade that account's block. In particular they are not the person whose Upwork profile they linked to. Therefore, unblock declined. Making your paid editing disclosures works in your favour if you appeal your block from your original account (which I now don't believe is compromised) but this account and your proxy will remain blocked. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 22:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
{{ checkuser needed}}: A proposed response to the unblock request can be found in the history of this page. If there are no checkuser objections, please undo my undo. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In response to User:ToBeFree's proposed response: Preposterous accusations and a blatant instance of guilt by association. From the onset of the creation of this account I had disclosed that I had been paid to clean up and resubmit the malformed articles in due process. I had cleaned them up, left a message on their take pages and submitted them trough the AfC process (the previous editor had simply pushed it straight into the mainspace). I didn't "influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion" or "sway consensus" in any shape or form. I never partook in any discussion or voting in regards to the articles that had been initially flagged as UPE. Charmanderblue ( talk) 14:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ☆
Bri (
talk)
01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Charmanderblue, Please note that per WP:PAID and the WMF Terms of Use, editors editing for compensation are also required to maintain links on their userpage to any websites on which they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. GSS 💬 05:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing servicesso, since you use that profile to obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services you need to provide the link. GSS 💬 06:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Parasitic Diseases, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Praxidicae Your request for a speedy deletion has been declined. On a relative note, could you explain the logic in reverting the edits I have made to Draft:Daniel_O._Griffin and Draft:Charles_Knirsch? The edits were made in good faith, removed puffery and weasel words that were leftover from the previous UPE editor. All edits made by me were disclosed to have been paid for, yet you've reverted the drafts to the malformed state they were until I came along to clean them up and submit for an AfC (the originals were simply pushed into mainspace). Thanks. Charmanderblue ( talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.It also states
New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.Editors here have expressed concerns that you are acting in an identical fashion to a blocked editor; if the community finds this to be so, then your edits can be reverted w/o explanation. In fact since your account was created two days after the editor in question was blocked, any or all of your edits could be subject to reversion. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Marti Buckley.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Uploaded for Draft:Marti Buckley. No other use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Minorax«¦
talk¦»
06:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)