User talk:Carlapple

Carlapple, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Carlapple! 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 Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reginald DesRoches (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dreamy Jazz was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reginald DesRoches and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reginald DesRoches, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Carlapple. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Reginald DesRoches, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Carlapple (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry is ready to go--

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reginald DesRoches (September 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

Notable but please remove the inline links to external web pages

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reginald DesRoches and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reginald DesRoches, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for shared use of this account and undeclared paid editing in violation of the Terms of Use.

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 ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

After reading the Terms of Use a few times, I understand the reason why this account was blocked. I apologize. I did not mean to cause any problems and I meant no harm against Wikipedia. I just merely want another chance to get this page published. That is all. Carlapple (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were doing fine until you got to, "I just merely want another chance to get this page published." No, obviously not. This shows you have no idea why you were blocked and, if unblocked, would continue violating our policies. Yamla (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize again. I was told the reason this account was blocked was due to undeclared paid editing, which means if I'm being paid to contribute to Wikipedia, I have to declare who is paying me and who the clients is in order for my contributions to remain unbiased, using a connected contributor template. I am aware of the reason I was blocked. I merely stated earlier that I wanted another chance to post my draft so that I can resubmit it while operating under the Terms of Use and without breaking a rule. I apologize once again. It bears repeating that I indeed meant no harm to Wikipedia. Carlapple (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, a declaration of whom is paying you to edit would be the minimum required to begin discussing your block. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:19, 26 November 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I also recognize the other issue is sharing accounts with the person who employed me to publish his draft. This is also a violation of your rules and I understand that ignorance is not an excuse. If you restore this account, I will respect Wikipedia's Terms of Use and no longer use this account. I will use one of my own creation and I will be the only one with access to it so that way I do not violate the Terms of Use. Carlapple (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I would want to see some evidence you are here to be a general contributor and edit in other topic areas before permitting you to edit about your client. Since you say editing about your client is all you want to do, I see no reason to remove the block or allow you to create another account. I am declining your request; you may make another to attempt to convince someone else to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was hired to perform a function for a company. Writing Wikipedia pages is part of my freelance writing capabilities. I will be contracted again to write other pages and submit them for creation. I already have another client lined up that's seeking me to write a page for them. I said publishing this article for creation is all I planned to do for this client and nothing more. Perhaps, to continually update it as time goes on. But I will be a general contributor for the foreseeable future for which I will need a new account. However, if you decide that knowing what rules I broke and learning the ways to avoid breaking them again and knowing that I will be a contributor for the future is still not enough to convince you, then I will understand. It is your site and you have every right to decide who posts on it or not and you have zero compunctions to care whether I fulfill my duties or not, as well. I will respect your decision either way. Carlapple (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, that's very understanding of you. I get no sense that you are here to build this encyclopedia. My sense is that you are here to exploit it and to exploit people who want to use Wikipedia to serve themselves in some way. This very conflict of duties precludes any thought of me unblocking you, as I have my own duty to perform.-- Deep fried okra 07:20, 27 November 2019 (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.

If you aren't going to use this account again, there is no need to remove the block. The block can be altered to allow you to create a new account, but only if the other issues are resolved first. Is there anything you want to edit about(paid or unpaid) other than Dr. DesRoches? 331dot (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. This is the only page I wish to edit and submit for publishing. Can the block be altered so a new account can be created?

Someone else will review your request, but you said "this is the only page I wish to edit and submit for publishing" when I asked you if you wanted to edit about other topics. You didn't mention a desire to edit about other clients. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, allowing a rename would be foolhardy. It would incur the risk of you continuing to exploit Wikipedia and to gain from it.-- Deep fried okra 07:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you must. I respect your decision. Like I said I was hired to write a wikipedia page for a company that wanted a page written about a person whom I believe doesn't have anything to do with the company. Not really clear as to how that exploits Wikipedia. But it does not matter. There is no magical word that can be said to remove the block. You initially claimed that the block was there because I failed to understand the rules. When I listed the rules I broke and explained how I broke them, you didn't unblock me. Thus proving that the reasons I was blocked did not matter. When I said I would become a meaningful contributor for the future, you didn't unblock me. Also proving that did it not matter either. In truth, you never had any intention of unblocking me. So therefore you clearly don't want paid editors to be on Wikipedia. You should just state that for the future. I'm sorry you don't believe me when I say I would be an objective editor whose dedicated to only delivering facts that are devoid of bias or judgement values because that's all I wanted to do. Carlapple (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you aren't requesting unblock, I have removed the unblock request formatting from your statement. I'm sorry you feel that way, but you haven't been completely forthright with us(and me). Paid editors are permitted if they are up front about it, but not if they want to make editing Wikipedia their career. As I said, if you want to be a general contributor and make contributions regardless of whether or not you are paid for them, you need to convince us of that, but it's difficult to trust what you say based on your past statements. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]