Jump to content

User talk:Cecibell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Cecibell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


May 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Google TV may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • by the company Exo Level, Inc. In March 2014, Google’s case was denied.<ref>Berkens, Michael. [http://www.thedomains.com/2014/03/27/udrp-panel-punts-denying-googles-udrp-on-androidtv-com/” UDRP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Sandra Maas was accepted

[edit]
Sandra Maas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Convoy of Hope has been accepted

[edit]
Convoy of Hope, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chris Troutman (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Hana Financial (June 22)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Onel5969 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC The Alliance (health care) was accepted

[edit]
The Alliance (health care), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Kari Feinstein (publicist) (August 2)

[edit]
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.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

Sionk (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Naturex (company) (August 20)

[edit]
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.

and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

Sionk (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Cliffside Malibu was accepted

[edit]
Cliffside Malibu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Coin945 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Momentum Worldwide has been accepted

[edit]
Momentum Worldwide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 19:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Cecibell. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Fiddle Faddle 19:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kari Feinstein Public Relations (September 26)

[edit]
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. JSFarman (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Cecibell, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JSFarman (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Your submission at Articles for creation: CourseHorse has been accepted

[edit]
CourseHorse, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Debra Boronski (October 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
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. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naturex (company) has been accepted

[edit]
Naturex (company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the article. I have one very important caution, though: I found one place where you essentially copied most of a sentence from your source.
The source wrote: "French ingredients firm Naturex claims to be the first supplier to offer natural blue spirulina coloring for lipophilic confectionery applications such as compound coatings....The FDA approval of the use of the algae-based pigment as a natural blue colorant for candies and chewing gums came into effect on September 13 this year."
You then cited it and wrote: "In fall 2013, the company introduced natural blue spirulina coloring for lipophilic confectionery applications, such as compound coatings. The FDA approved the algae-based pigment as a natural blue color agent for candies and chewing gums that September."
This is plagiarism and you must not do it in Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). Instead, you must completely rewrite the information, not borrowing any of the original phrases. That's what I have done, so it now reads the following: "In fall 2013, the company introduced a blue fat-soluble food coloring extracted from the biomass of the cyanobacteria Arthrospira platensis and intended for confectionery uses such as candy and chewing gum. The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the pigment that September."
Please take care not to do this in the future. If you need any help, feel free to ask on my talk page.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing with this source, which included the phrase "a blood sugar-support ingredient (Glucevia) derived from the fruits and seeds of Fraxinus excelsior (common ash or European ash)." You essentially copied it: "a blood-sugar support ingredient, Glucevia, derived from the fruit and seeds of European ash."
Also this one. It says: "aims to develop...'green' extracts obtained with alternative solvents, as well as new technologies to extract rare botanical ingredients." You copied: "develop more green extracts with the use of alternative solvents, along with technologies for extracting rare botanical ingredients." This is entirely unacceptable and I'm wondering if I made a mistake in approving the article.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Switch (company), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Connectivity, Server and Colocation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald (Don) A. Kurz has been accepted

[edit]
Donald (Don) A. Kurz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

The Herald : here I am 16:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 24Hr HomeCare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiple Sclerosis Society. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D'Angelico Guitars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Davis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SuperNAP has been accepted

[edit]
SuperNAP, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

BenLinus1214talk 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lending Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Williams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for an indefinite period

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

From reviewing your editing history (which comprises mainly spammy cookie cutter articles about unrelated companies and businesspeople), it appears that you are editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest, and are likely a for-pay editor. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently deleting the articles you added, and I note that several of them had been deleted previously due to concerns around notability or being spam articles, which helps to confirm my suspicions about your editing. I'm protecting these articles from being recreated. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I note that you'd disclosed the COI on your user page (but not the articles' talk pages, or for all the articles you've been adding spammy material to). From the content of the articles, you were also in violation of WP:NOPAY. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 5 February 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).

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

Request reason:

First, let me sincerely apologize if I have been violating Wikipedia’s guidelines in any way. I understand that your job as an editor must be very frustrating at times, as you are constantly battling editors who are trying to spam the community. However, please understand that I don’t consider myself one of these editors. I hope that you will allow me to explain why. I have been a member in good standing on Wikipedia since May 2014, and I have always done my best to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and code of ethics. I consider myself a reputable editor, who has been contributing valuable articles with quality sources. All but 3 of my articles have been through Articles through Creation. These articles have been reviewed and accepted by other editors, so I have reason to believe that these articles are not consider spam by the community, and in fact, are valuable to Wikipedia. It may seem silly, but my feelings are actually a little wounded by the word “spam” as I have been very careful to follow all of the guidelines to the best of my knowledge. I declared myself a paid editor and have worked hard to maintain a neutral tone. I was not aware that I also needed to declare COI on the talk page of each article until today, and I will be more than happy to follow that guideline in the future. I have constantly sought guidance from other editors to make sure that I have followed all the rules, and I have always been thankful for their advice. I am likewise thankful that you have brought this rule to my attention. I request that you unblock my account, and perhaps review my articles more carefully. Again, the vast majority of my articles were already approved through the Articles by Creation process. I am actually a little confused as to how they could be deleted after having been reviewed and approved by the community. And again, I welcome guidance from you as to how I can improve my work and better serve Wikipedia. Cecibell (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your history speaks for itself, and your comments here do not lead me to believe you will now edit without breaking our policies on COI. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:13, 24 February 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.

Approval at AfC is a bit like getting your driving licence at 16, 17 or 18 (depending on local rules). It means that you can go solo - but it doesn't mean you're fit to take a Ferrari coast to coast. At AfC, it means that one reviewer has decided that the article is OK to enter article space. It is not approval by the community for good and ever. Articles can be looked at again even after 10 years, and found not to be suitable. Some reviewers are more easy-going than others - but when the article is in article space, it's subject to the patrollers for review - or to anyone who just happens to see it. And if an admin agrees with the tagging, it gets deleted. Just as you can't say to a court when up for dangerous driving (in the Ferrari), 'Well, I passed my test yesterday!'... Peridon (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the requirement to prominently declare conflicts of interest and generally avoid directly editing articles with which you have a COI is explicitly set out in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, I'm afraid that I don't think that it's the case at all that you were following the relevant guidelines. You were actually violating them entirely and the articles you were creating were blatant advertising, and not serious attempts at developing encyclopaedia articles. From the above, it appears that you intend to do more of the same if unblocked. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your prompt response. If unblocked, I would like to continue to post articles through articles for creation as a paid editor. I will be certain to also declare my status as paid editor when posting such articles in articles through creation. I have not attempted to misguide the wiki community in any way. It was my understanding that declaring my status as a paid editor on my talk page was sufficient. I appreciate the feedback that it was not sufficient.
Regarding editing, I will follow your suggestion to suggest all such edits on the talk page.
If you look at my history, you will see that I consistently sought feedback from the wiki community through the articles though creation process. 16 of 19 of my articles have gone through the articles for creation process. During the process of posting these articles, other editors have been very helpful in helping me to improve my work.
It is my sincere hope that you will also help to improve my work and contributions to Wikipedia.
I am a paid editor, with an obvious COI. However it is my understanding that Wikipedia allows paid editors and it is my belief that having knowledgeable and honest paid editors working on and with wiki is in the best interest of Wikipedia.
I hope you will give me the opportunity to improve any processes that have not been in the best interest of wiki.Cecibell (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: I reviewed one of Cecibell's articles (Naturex) at Articles for Creation last year. I found some serious patchwriting problems (which had nothing to do with a COI), but I fixed those and otherwise found the article neutral, well-referenced, and notable. Thanks to her userpage, I realized that she was a paid editor and that she probably had a conflict of interest regarding the article. Creating articles for AfC while disclosing your COI is exactly how paid editors should engage with Wikipedia. If any spammy articles slipped through that process (I can't see the deleted articles to know), it's the fault of the reviewer, not the original writer.
The only definite requirements the conflict of interest guideline gives are: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" and "paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question" (which includes AfC). I think Cecibell's behavior here—particularly her userpage disclosures and her use of AfC—shows that she tried to comply with those requirements.
I don't support direct CoI edits except for the most basic, uncontroversial ones (e.g. spelling and grammar corrections, cited updates to revenue figures and version numbers). To the extent that Cecibell did that, it's a real problem. But it's not clear to me to what extent that is. Cecibell, it seems like you didn't give a full list of your CoI articles, since you didn't include ones like Naturex and CourseHorse. I think it would help if you made a list of all the articles you have created and edited while having a conflict of interest, stating whether you did so (a) directly, (b) indirectly, through an edit request or AfC submission, or (c) both. That will give us an unambiguous record to discuss.
Nick-D, if nothing else, I'd suggest that you undelete any articles created through AfC unless they're obvious spam. I doubt that's the case with most of them, because whatever flaws AfC reviewers may have, they're unlikely to miss obvious spam.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, Cecibell, I don't think you're entirely blameless. This edit, for example, is exactly what a COI editor shouldn't be doing directly. But I do believe that most of your contributions were acceptable and that you were trying to do the right thing, which I personally think should earn you a second chance.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the articles were written in advertising-speak and generally covered topics of questionable notability, so I don't intend to restore them. They weren't serious attempts at writing encyclopaedia articles, and would need to be fundamentally re-written to present a neutral point of view. I strongly disagree with your contention that "it's the fault of the reviewer, not the original writer" - all editors are responsible for what they write, and this is one of Wikipedia's key operating principles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again, and thank you again for your consideration. I have always tried to follow Wikipedia's policies. I declared myself a paid editor and have worked hard to maintain a neutral tone.

As I mentioned, I was not aware that I also needed to declare COI on the talk page of each article, and I will always follow that guideline in the future. I appreciate that you have brought this rule to my attention, and I understand it fully now.

As I mentioned above, I am a paid editor, and have declared that on my userpage. I will also provide a complete list of all the articles I have created and edited while having a conflict of interest. I am compliling this list and have it up by Monday. Cecibell (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Below is the list of the articles I have worked on with a COI. I will add this list to my user page as well.
  • Renaud Laplanche
  • Lending Club
  • Jannik Olander
  • SUPERNAP
  • Nialaya Jewelry
  • Daniel Milstein
  • Cliffside Malibu
  • The Alliance
  • Liquid Blue
  • John Beraradi
  • Living Scriptures
  • Convoy of Hope
  • Naturex
  • Jim Greer
  • D’Angelico Guitars
  • CourseHorse
  • Donald A. Kurz
  • Hana Financial
  • IDEALOGUE
  • Budget Challenge
  • Kari Fienstein
  • Debra Boronski

Cecibell (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cecibell, can you expand that list to (1) link to the articles, even if they've since been deleted (for example, you don't have any edits on Jim Greer—you must mean a different article) and (2) mention which of those articles you edited directly, as opposed to through AfC or a talk page request? I've started an expanded list below to give you an idea of what I mean.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI edits

[edit]

Direct edits to existing articles

[edit]

AfC drafts, accepted

[edit]

AfC drafts, not accepted

[edit]

Afc drafts, pending

[edit]

Articles posted

[edit]

Please note: I miscounted above 15 out of 19 articles were submitted through articles through creation. Cecibell (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

[edit]
  • Cecibell: first, a belated thank you for your honesty in putting together this list. It makes the issue very clear. Unfortunately, what I draw from it is that your mistakes were more serious than I realized. You directly created or edited at least eight articles without anywhere disclosing a major conflict of interest (e.g. being paid); I accept that you meant well and didn't understand that you were seriously violating our policies, but the fact remains that you were.
It might be possible for you to be reinstated if you (1) apologize unreservedly, (2) accept a two or three month ban in light of the seriousness of your mistakes, and (3) promise never to directly edit or create any articles where you have a conflict of interest after that ban expires. I think that would be fair, but of course I only speak for myself—other editors might disagree. If you want to take this route, let me know and I'll be happy to help you through it.
Either way, just so you're aware, please keep in mind our sock puppetry policy: creating new accounts to avoid a block is a "serious breach of community trust".—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neil P. Quinn: Thank you for your response and offer of help. I am certainly willing to do the steps you suggested, and I would appreciate any help you can give me in negotiating the next steps. My intention was not to violate Wiki's policies. I really didn't know that you had to declare a COI on each edit; I thought declaring on my bio was sufficient. Certainly, I will always declare the COI on each edit in the future (and only request the edits be made on the talk page, rather than actually make them).

I do have one question: If we suggest that I request a two month ban, then during my ban, is it possible to get the articles that were deleted (especially the articles that were approved through AfC) reviewed again by the Wiki community? Cecibell (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope not: they were blatant spam. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:D'Angelico Guitars logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D'Angelico Guitars logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second unblock request

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Please pardon my slow response. I wanted to give time for other editors to weigh in. I think the two or three month ban proposed by User:Neil P. Quinn is very reasonable. I accept that I breached policy and I apologize for it. If possible, I would like to participate in the mentorship or Adopt-a-User programs and work with them to bring the articles that were deleted up to standards. I think that this would help me learn to be a more productive Wikipedia user. Cecibell (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To echo what the blocking admin has said, recreating the deleted articles doesn't sound like a very good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 15 March 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.

So you want to be unblocked so you can re-create the spam articles I deleted? That doesn't sound like a very good idea, and immediately puts you in breach of WP:COI given your paid relationship with these firms and/or their marketing companies. In several cases I protected those articles from being recreated given that multiple spam articles had been created on them over the years. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
user:PhilKnight - Thank you for responding to my request. May I ask: Under what circumstances do you feel my unblock request would be reasonable?
I would appreciate any guidance you can give me, and I believe that if you give me an opportunity to work with the community again, you will see that I am sincere in my desire to follow the rules and provide only material that meets Wiki standards.
If I have not, then I would very much appreciate help in understanding what I can do better. Hence my eagerness to apply for the mentorship program. I seek guidance from you and any other admin here that would be helpful enough to weigh in: What can I do to prove to the community that my goal is not to spam, but to be a well respected member of the community who provides quality articles?Cecibell (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
user:PhilKnight - Hope you are having a great day. Was just checking in to see if you had seen my above request. I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thanks. Cecibell (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a Standard Offer approach in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
user:PhilKnight - Thank you for the information. I will be sure to read this information thoroughly before I post again.
user:PhilKnight - Thank you again for sending me this link to the standard unblock offer. I have read it several times, and based on what I am reading, I have put together the following offer. I would very much appreciate your feedback.
"I would like to submit a standard offer to be unblocked. I request a 4 to 6 month ban from Wikipedia.
"I understand the reason I was blocked was for directly editing articles while having a COI. I should have requested edits be made on articles' talk pages, along with a declaration of my COI, as stated here: "(those with COI) are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question. Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
"I would like to reiterate that I was not aware of this guideline previously, and that I did declare my COI on my talk page. I was not attempting to hide my COI, and I sincerely apologize for this error. I will NOT violate this guideline again.
"During my block, in order to better educate myself on how to best serve the Wiki community, I would like to focus on helping the community by working on the wiki projects listed on Wikipedia:Community_portal.
"I would also like to participate in the mentorship or Adopt-a-User programs in order to be a more educated contributor to Wikipedia.
"It is my sincere desire to be a respectful and valuable member of Wiki, and I hope that I will be granted a second chance to work with the community."Cecibell (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:IDEALOGUE logo.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IDEALOGUE logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~barakokula31 (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cecibell&oldid=1080357437"