User talk:Charlesnelson

Welcome!

Hello, Charlesnelson, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Charles Nelson (architect), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles Nelson (architect)

The article Charles Nelson (architect) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not meet WP:GNG, no indication of meeting WP:CREATIVE

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Nelson (architect)

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 Charles Nelson (architect), 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello, Charlesnelson. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest 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 (see 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 please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Deb (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, this may be of intrest to you. John from Idegon (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review blocking

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

charlesnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Clearly, I have broken two of Wikipedia's fundamental rules, because I didn't read those rules. "Ignorance of the law" excuse. It's very embarrassing.

Here's what happened: A friend thought I should have a page in Wikipedia. I said I had no objection; just told her to read the rules and not to say anything that wasn't true or verifiable. She thought she needed to submit her post under my name, so I gave her my password. She came into the office and used one of our computers to write it. So, 3 BIG rules broken right there. The moment I got the first critique, I asked her to completely remove whatever she had written. She tried and said it couldn't be done.

I acknowledge these serious errors. I have NOW read the rules myself, and certainly see the problems. Be assured that (1) I will not attempt to create a page for myself in the future, nor (2) knowingly permit a friend to do so, nor (3) ever give my password to another person. If my account is unblocked, I will promptly change my password.

It may be useful to ask why I created an account in the first place. It was because I saw what I considered to be some serious inaccuracies in some pages on quality management, an area where I have experience and expertise. I wanted to become involved with "getting that right". However, time always seemed to get in the way, and I never did suggest any edits to these pages. I'd hope to carve out time to do that in the future, which requires care and serious thought. So, I would like to retain my account if possible. Charlesnelson (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm going to unblock you as I believe the reason for the block has been adequately addressed. I don't feel this is a WP:COMPROMISED issue and that NOSHARE has been resolved. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Teahouse. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Charlesnelson. I'm not an administrator so I cannot review your request. I'm just posting to point out that your request has not been formatted properly, so it's not showing up as expected. This account was soft-blocked for a username violation; so, you're going to need to add user=new username to the your unblock request. Normally, these blocks are issued when someone is using a username which is one of the types listed at WP:IU. In this case, however, it appears that you are claiming that the account is yours and that you were only letting a friend use your account to edit (which btw is a violation of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT). If the latter was really the case, then I'm not sure whether the account can ever be restored because it might be seen as a case of WP:COMPROMISED, i will, however, ask 331dot, the administrator who blocked the account, to take a look at your request and advise you on what needs to be done. In the meantime, you should take a look at WP:REALNAME for reference; you can use your real name if you like, but you may be asked to verify your identity by sending an email to Wikimedia OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Services that offer to create pages for a fee

I receive email from a Texas consultant that claims to have created Wikipedia pages for over 5,000 people in the last year. How can they do this and comply with Wikipedia's rules? Charlesnelson (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, yes. However, many of them are scams and I would strongly discourage you from using one. If you would be willing to forward me the email, I can pass it on to those who deal with such things to check them out. Again, I would strongly discourage you from using one of these operations. John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you cannot forward me the email through Wikipedia's email service, so I'll ask about that at the proper place and someone will get back to you. John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charlesnelson. Wikipedia is techinically the encyclopedia which anyone can edit, which means that lots of articles are created each year; however, many of these don't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and end up eventually getting deleted. There are editors who get paid for their Wikipedia contributions and they tend to not have any problems as long as they comply with relevant policies and guidelines (particularly WP:COI and WP:PAID). Generally, editors only start having problems when it appears they are editing only for themselves (or perhaps someone they know) and not Wikipedia.

As for the particular company who sent you this email, you can ask about them at WP:COIN and perhaps someone has heard of them. Personally, I'd be leery of any company which tries to offer such services simply because they are most likely trying to sell you something that Wikipedia is not. They may employ persons who are experienced editors that are quite familiar with relevant policies and guidelines, but there are no guarantees that any articles they create or edit will withstand WP:COMMUNITY scrutiny and not end up heavily revised or deleted. Article content can be removed as quickly as it's added, and articles can be tagged/nominated for deletion as quickly as they're created; moreover, companies providing such services don't have any final editorial control over any articles they create or edit. So, if they are telling you something different, then they either don't understand how Wikipedia works or are purposely misleading you like what happened in Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Company offering to write Wikipedia pages for a fee

See wikiprofessionalsinc.com. Charlesnelson (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the company basically trying to sell Wikipedia profiles, I would suggest to stay away from them and not send them any money at all. Wikipedia articles are not profile pages in any real-world sense of the word. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post something at WP:COIN#WikiProfessionals, but it would post because the company's website has been WP:BLACKLISTed. So, I would definitely stay away from them. Since their website has been blacklisted, the Wikipedia community seems to be aware of their existence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most paid editing services do not comply with our policies. Some of them do (as far as I know) such as User:BC1278 or User:CorporateM. However, if the subject of the article does not meet notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) there is nothing that a legitimate service can do. --MarioGom (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that they say they comply and probably do so most of the time but may also use annoying techniques such as WP:BLUDGEONING to get their clients point of view over. And also do not believe any claims of having a 100% success rate in publishing articles as this is false. To be perfectly honest if you want to have a page here on yourself that means you have not understood what the aim of Wikipedia is. Do not forget that any information about you could end up here be it positive or negative and so long as it is sourced and meets WP:BLP guidelines it will stay. Wikipedia is not a way of promoting yourself. I would say wait until a third party has decided that you are notable enough and creates a page about you. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these "pay to write" services

To clarify: I have no interest in paying anybody to write pages! I've received a number of these offers over many years. Once I'd read the Wikipedia rules, it seemed to me that it would be all but impossible for such a service to comply. If you can't write your own page, you could not get away with paying somebody to write it for you! Sure, maybe if one got somebody else to contact such a service, and told them what to write, one could conceal his/her intent. Seems a bit ridiculous. I was just curious how the Wikipedia Praetorian Guard dealt with such services. Charlesnelson (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a minefield that no one should walk into.

On another note, if you have some expertise with certain topics then we would welcome your knowledge as a subject-matter expert. Have a look at the essay called Wikipedia:Expert editors which has some recommendations for expert editors who want to contribute without unknowingly being unduly self-serving. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That essay would hardly make expert editors feel welcome. Speaking as an "expert editor" to some limited extent, I suggest you just dive in and start contributing in your area. If you mess up someone will correct you; don't take it personally. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]