User talk:AlainMichelParis

Promoting Wayne Fromm

Hello, AlainMichelParis. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Selfie, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Holly Schapker

Hi, I'm Lstanley1979. AlainMichelParis, thanks for creating Holly Schapker!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi Alan - thanks for the article. However, this needs a number more third-party WP:Reliable Sources to prove Holly is notable: you can't rely just on her self-published work. Please see WP:Creative for the criteria required.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. LS1979 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bilby (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am shocked by your decision to block me as a sockpupet or banned user. I have never been involved in any disruptive activity or contest a decision. I am sure that this is an unfortunate misunderstanding. The blocking tag does not give specific details so that I can understand better your decision. If this is an unfortunate mistake, I will really appreciate that you unblock my account and restate my articles. Thank you for your understanding. AlainMichelParis (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) AlainMichelParis AlainMichelParis (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked if you intend to resume conflict-of-interest editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 20 January 2015 (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.

Message to Bilby

I am shocked by your decision to block me as a sockpupet. I am sure that this is a misunderstanding. The blocking tad does not give specific details. Please give me explicit details so that I can understand better your decision. If this is an unfortunate mistake, I will really appreciate that you unblock my account and restate my articles. Thank you for your understanding. AlainMichelParis (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) AlainMichelParis[reply]

Hi AlainMichelParis. Your editing very closely matches another editor, User:Mamadoutadioukone, sufficient that it appears that you are either them or editing on their behalf. It might help if you can give some context. Can you explain why you decided to create the Kevin Michael Schmitz article? - Bilby (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby. I appreciate and thank you for your willingness to discuss. When I first started creating articles on Wikipedia, I learned a lot by example and followed the style and format of articles I liked most in the categories I researched on Wikipedia. This is the shortest path to understanding most of the Wikipedia policies and rules. Is it forbidden in Wikipedia to emulate editors who have had issues? I must confess that I didn't know that and ask for your indulgence. I am an amateur photograph and former student of an art institute in California. Kevin Michael Schmitz, a professional photograph whose works appear often on the L.A. Fashion magazine, has the kind of photo shooting style (this word again, :) ) that appeals to me. Therefore, I thought that he deserves a Wikipedia page.

I hope this explanation helps clear the misunderstanding and serves as a lesson for me and also for other editors.

Thank you for your cooperation. AlainMichelParis (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC) AlainMichelParis[reply]

Unfortunately, we're going to end up going around in circles here, and I don't want to be unfair and draw things out needlessly. I was hoping you would have a different explanation for Kevin Michael Schmitz that would provide a point to start, but I guess not. The problem is that it is clear that you have been engaging in undisclosed paid editing - not just Kevin Michael Schmitz and Photography Workshop Series, but also articles like Keith Litman. The evidence connecting you with Mamadoutadioukone is strong enough that I can't see how you can be a different editor, unless you are acting on their behalf. Personally, I think your best bet will be the standard offer of avoiding socking for six months and then seeing if the original account can be reinstated - I'm not sure how people will view paid editing in this context, but it is worth a go. Otherwise, I can provide what I have to an independent admin for consideration, but I can't see how the result will be different. - Bilby (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping the conversation going. You said "The problem is that it is clear that you have been engaging in undisclosed paid editing - not just Kevin Michael Schmitz and Photography Workshop Series, but also articles like Keith Litman. The evidence connecting you with Mamadoutadioukone is strong enough that I can't see how you can be a different editor, unless you are acting on their behalf." I must admit that these statements are really strong and go beyond my understanding and perception of Wikipedia. I could not imagine such statements could be used against an innocent editor here. They are just too strong and unfair. I had the vision of a place where registered users could freely post articles they like no matter the subject and the style. When things turn into this direction, it may be better that I think twice in the future before posting an article again. Your suggestion for moving forward is sound but I don't think I should put that much energy for an account that I use in my spare time to create articles just for fun. This conversation helped me learn a bit more about the Wikipedia culture and the things that are going on behind the scene. Thank you. AlainMichelParis (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) AlainMichelParis[reply]