Jump to content

User talk:Coalfacesally

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

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film)

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://actingclassof1977.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film)

[edit]

The article Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article gives no claim of notability for the documentary, and the summary is laregely taken from the plot summary listed on www.imdb.com.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film)

[edit]

The article Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ttonyb (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex

[edit]

Hello, Coalfacesally,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel it necessary to delete this page? Does it mean that the page came be re-instated at a later date? Also, why is it just up to your advice to delete the page? I note that many pages on Wiki could be up for deletion. As regards the image. On what basis do you recommend it for deletion? I went to some trouble to do as requested - that is to send to wikimedia permissions on the 25th October 2013 Evidence of Permissions of the image. Do you have no contact with the administrational infrastructure for wiki that you can recommend deletion of an image even though I did exactly what was asked on me?

The Evidence of Permissions for the image File:A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex poster.jpg was sent, as per instruction, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org at the following time and date Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM with Evidence of Permissions as subject matter. I am discouraged that a wiki contributor can follow the administrational procedure and then a wiki contributor can randomly, without warning, and for no apparent reason, except a subjective opinion, remove a page without consultation with wiki permissions to ascertain if the correct Evidence of Permissions had been sent and received - which it had been and which I will follow up on - though understandably I am discouraged by the lack of infrastructure (to which I fiscally have donated to). The film will stand out because it deals with female sexuality. Perhaps those that have taken this film page down are men who find female sexuality and a conversation re same, which the film seeks to begin - not in their interests.(Coalfacesally (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

File permission problem with File:A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex poster.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex poster.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Why did you feel it necessary to delete this page? Does it mean that the page came be re-instated at a later date? Also, why is it just up to your advice to delete the page? I note that many pages on Wiki could be up for deletion. As regards the image. On what basis do you recommend it for deletion? I went to some trouble to do as requested - that is to send to wikimedia permissions on the 25th October 2013 Evidence of Permissions of the image. Do you have no contact with the administrational infrastructure for wiki that you can recommend deletion of an image even though I did exactly what was asked on me?.

The Evidence of Permissions for the image File:A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex poster.jpg was sent, as per instruction, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org at the following time and date Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM with Evidence of Permissions as subject matter. I am discouraged that a wiki contributor can follow the administrational procedure and then a wiki contributor can randomly, without warning, and for no apparent reason, except a subjective opinion, remove a page without consultation with wiki permissions to ascertain if the correct Evidence of Permissions had been sent and received - which it had been and which I will follow up on - though understandably I am discouraged by the lack of infrastructure (to which I fiscally have donated to). The film will stand out because it deals with female sexuality. Perhaps those that have taken this film page down are men who find female sexuality and a conversation re same, which the film seeks to begin - not in their interests. (Coalfacesally (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Your articles

[edit]

Hello coalfacesally! Unfortunately, your page on A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex has been deleted. I've nominated the associated image, File:A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex poster.jpg, for deletion as no well. I hope this isn't discouraging for you, and that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia! I think the project can really benefit from your expertise in film. Let me know if you have any questions. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cerebellum. I do wonder why you felt it necessary to delete this page. Does it mean that the page came be re-instated at a later date? Also, why is it just up to your advice to delete the page? I note that many pages on Wiki could be up for deletion. As regards the image. On what basis do you recommend it for deletion? I went to some trouble to do as requested - that is to send to wikimedia permissions on the 25th October 2013 Evidence of Permissions of the image. Do you have no contact with the administrational infrastructure for wiki that you can recommend deletion of an image even though I did exactly what was asked on me? I look forward to hearing from you. coalfacesally (talk)

The Evidence of Permissions for the image File:A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex poster.jpg was sent, as per instruction, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org at the following time and date Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM with Evidence of Permissions as subject matter. I am discouraged that a wiki contributor can follow the administrational procedure and then a wiki contributor can randomly, without warning, and for no apparent reason, except a subjective opinion, remove a page without consultation with wiki permissions to ascertain if the correct Evidence of Permissions had been sent and received - which it had been and which I will follow up on - though understandably I am discouraged by the lack of infrastructure (to which I fiscally have donated to). The film will stand out because it deals with female sexuality. Perhaps those that have taken this film page down are men who find female sexuality and a conversation re same, which the film seeks to begin - not in their interests. (Coalfacesally (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex

[edit]

User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel it necessary to delete this page? Does it mean that the page came be re-instated at a later date? Also, why is it just up to your advice to delete the page? I note that many pages on Wiki could be up for deletion. As regards the image. On what basis do you recommend it for deletion? I went to some trouble to do as requested - that is to send to wikimedia permissions on the 25th October 2013 Evidence of Permissions of the image. Do you have no contact with the administrational infrastructure for wiki that you can recommend deletion of an image even though I did exactly what was asked on me?.

The Evidence of Permissions for the image File:A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex poster.jpg was sent, as per instruction, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org at the following time and date Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM with Evidence of Permissions as subject matter. I am discouraged that a wiki contributor can follow the administrational procedure and then a wiki contributor can randomly, without warning, and for no apparent reason, except a subjective opinion, remove a page without consultation with wiki permissions to ascertain if the correct Evidence of Permissions had been sent and received - which it had been and which I will follow up on - though understandably I am discouraged by the lack of infrastructure (to which I fiscally have donated to). The film will stand out because it deals with female sexuality. Perhaps those that have taken this film page down are men who find female sexuality and a conversation re same, which the film seeks to begin - not in their interests.(Coalfacesally (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion debate

[edit]

Hello Coalfacesally,

Please do not comment on a deletion debate after the debate has been closed. The article has been deleted for one reason, and one reason alone: the film does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability standards. If it becomes notable after release, then of course it can be recreated, and I will enthusiastically support keeping the article at that time. Your accusation that the article has been deleted arbitrarily by men who somehow oppose articles about women's sexuality is completely false, at least in my case. I delight in and celebrate women's sexuality, and support inclusion of every single such article on notable topics. I have created and expanded hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and have participated in thousands of deletion debates. I recommend keeping or deleting articles roughly equally, and my recommendations are based on my study of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not my personal feelings about the topic of the article in question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cullen

It was not my understanding that I could not comment on an article after it had been deleted. In fact, the deleter specifically requested my response. I wonder why one cannot comment on an article after deletion? There are many pages on wiki that are dedicated to films that are not notable. I suspect they had attached large studios, which possibly carries weight. I did not accuse anyone. I made sure I used terms like 'might' and 'perhaps'. As regards female sexuality there is very little on the internet and this film is notable for the fact that it is a conversation on female sexuality. My understanding is that the page has been taken down predominantly because the image attached to the page was not cleared for copyright, which it has been through wiki permissions, however, the deleter did not take the time to check that copyright had been cleared. You did not address this in your response. (Coalfacesally (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You seem to be confusing and combining two separate deletion debates. The article on the film was deleted for lack of notability, namely that it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The debate about the image is on Wikimedia Commons, a separate website with its own administrators. I explained below why I think it is a very bad idea to release rights to a film poster using a Creative Commons license.
We have debates where anyone can comment. When the debate comes to an end, it is closed, and no more comments should be added to that debate. There There are other places to discuss things, as we are doing now.
Deletion of the article here and the poster there are unrelated matters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion arose re the poster as one of the comments initially received was 'the page needs an image'. In terms of the debate, for the novice wiki user, it is not immediately apparent as to how to actually engage in it. On a practical level, I didn't know how to enter it - it possibly says somewhere 'use the 'edit' mechanism but I couldn't find it. It was only this weekend that I worked out what to do. In terms of being too close for objectivity, it would be an educated guess that almost every film page on wiki, has been begun by someone involved in the film. The larger production companies have a number of employees and so it is an easy subterfuge. In terms of this film's notability: there are no other films on this subject matter and there are no other films with this one's unique narrative concept (Coalfacesally (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Film poster

[edit]

Please be careful about attempting to upload copies of a film poster to Wikimedia Commons. Are you aware that you are releasing all rights for other people to use the poster in any way they see fit, even if you do not approve? Why would you give up your copyright so freely? If the film becomes a hit, then anyone else can sell copies and not give the filmmaker a penny. Is that what you want? People who hate the movie can use the poster freely to trash it. Is that what you want?

Instead, posters for films are normally uploaded to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) under a very narrow "fair use" rationale, for use only to illustrate an article about the film, which preserves the original copyright. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After further investigation, I see that I was wrong about the licensing of the poster. If the film becomes notable, then we can have an article about the film and use the poster at that time. Sorry for the confusion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion replies (since you posted in many places)

[edit]

When an article is nominated for deletion a discussion area is made. You were invited to place comments there (read your notices above). The discussion remains open for normally a full 7 days upon which time a concensus is made by the people involved (not a vote). If you read the comments made, all agreed that the article should be resubmitted once the movie nears or has been released. There was no problem with the article or the content, just that dreaded "notability" thing. The issue of the image is a completely different topic, I am just addressing the main article deletion. Please have a look at the following:

Until such a time that the movie meets the criteria you may wish to work on the article in your sandbox (not as a sub user page). This is the area where you can develop it over time and be fully ready to move it into a full article when it meets submission guidelines.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you invite contributors to be part of a discussion, please make it clear to them how they can do that. I did read the notices. I tried, unsuccessfully, to work it out and couldn't. Possibly it says somewhere, 'use the edit mechanism' but I couldn't find it. If I had, I would have challenged the deletion in terms of the film's unique content and narrative concept. It is one of it's kind. In terms of being close to the film, it would be an educated guess that almost all wiki film pages have been created by someone involved in the production at some level, the larger companies have more employees and so this makes for an easier subterfuge. The image may have been a separate issue but to this novice wiki contributor, all the initial deletion feedback was rolled into one, including -the page needs an image (Coalfacesally (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Your film

[edit]

Hello,

Based on your username, your contributions to Wikipedia, and a quick glance at the film's web page, I conclude that it is highly likely that you are the filmmaker. If so, you are in an awkward position here. If your film fails to achieve notability. then I can't help you. But if your film receives significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then I will be happy to help you recreate the article. Contact me at any time.

I wrote an article about a new film A Thousand Times Good Night just a couple of days ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

You said:

Hello. I do wonder why you felt it necessary to delete this page. Does it mean that the page came be re-instated at a later date? Also, why is it just up to your advice to delete the page? I note that many pages on Wiki could be up for deletion. As regards the image. On what basis do you recommend it for deletion? I went to some trouble to do as requested - that is to send to wikimedia permissions on the 25th October 2013 Evidence of Permissions of the image. Do you have no contact with the administrational infrastructure for wiki that you can recommend deletion of an image even though I did exactly what was asked on me? I look forward to hearing from you

I, myself, did not delete the page. Only admins (anyone in Wikipedia:List_of_administrators) can delete. The page can be reinstated later, but for now, it seems to be too soon (see WP:TOOSOON) — there's barely any word out there online to verify that the film exists. Wikipedia is meant to provide encyclopedic, neutral information on something that has established notability, not vague promotion on something that might be notable in the future. Any content on Wikipedia must have reliable third-party sources to back up what is being said. If you want the image back, you can ask at WP:REFUND that File:AWDJIS poster.jpg be undeleted, but I have no idea what purpose it will serve for the time being. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I included in the updates of the page, the links to the tv version of the film, which is called A Woman's Journey Into Sex and is distribted by Off The Fence a distribution company based in London and Amsterdam. My understanding was that this would be proof that the film exists. When the film has been launched, how does one approach a page for it? If someone begins a page entitled A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex, will Wiki reject it because it has been begun in the past? (Coalfacesally (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You can recreate the article with the exact same title. I highly suggest you wait until very close to, or after, release date otherwise the same deletion may occur. The best time would be after a screening, where reviewers/critics view the film and write about it so it can be properly cited (see WP:CITE)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback (Coalfacesally (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]


From within Wiki, I'm sure the html talk, the places to look for discussion and all the challenges that communicating and contributing to wiki include - must be clearly apparent. From outside, there is a plethora of difficulties. Apart from that, I see a somewhat seemingly arbitrary nature of deleting articles and I have determined that the deletion process is hardest on independents. The studio films of course have a plethora at seemingly 'arms-length' assistants to post on their behalf. I shall take your advice and await reviews. In the meantime, can you spare a moment to communicate where and how we work on the page in preparation for it being published - this includes uploading the poster, which has been accepted by wiki under common licences. Thanks (Chaucer 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex

[edit]

The film still doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. The echonetdaily source seems to be the only reliable third party coverage out there so far, and I get only 27 hits on Google. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


From within Wiki, I'm sure the html talk, the places to look for discussion and all the challenges that communicating and contributing to wiki include - must be clearly apparent. From outside, there is a plethora of difficulties. Apart from that, I see a somewhat seemingly arbitrary nature of deleting articles and I have determined that the deletion process is hardest on independents. The studio films of course have a plethora at seemingly 'arms-length' assistants to post on their behalf. I shall take your advice and await reviews. In the meantime, can you spare a moment to communicate where and how we work on the page in preparation for it being published - this includes uploading the poster, which has been accepted by wiki under common licences. Thanks (Chaucer 22:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

MfD nomination of User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex

[edit]

User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. I have contributed to the discussion. Perhaps it will be wise as editor Cullen suggests, to wait for the film to have its premiere screenings and the attendant published critiques that will follow. (Chaucer 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC))


From within Wiki, I'm sure the html talk, the places to look for discussion and all the challenges that communicating and contributing to wiki include - must be clearly apparent. From outside, there is a plethora of difficulties. Apart from that, I see a somewhat seemingly arbitrary nature of deleting articles and have determined that the deletion process is hardest on independents. The studio films of course have a plethora at seemingly 'arms-length' assistants to post on their behalf. I shall take Cullen's advice and await reviews. In the meantime, can you spare a moment to communicate where and how we work on the page in preparation for it being published - this includes uploading the poster, which has been accepted by wiki under common licences. Thanks (Chaucer 22:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

February 2014

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Also, please put new posts at the bottom, not the top. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I will endeavour to do as you have set out (Chaucer 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC))

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sally McKenzie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and John Sumner. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sally McKenzie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Reeves and John Sumner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Coalfacesally. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sally McKenzie, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I certainly understand now the ramifications of my actions, I make apologies and atone for my mistakes. I have looked through your work as a wiki editor. Very impressive. Congratulations and thank you for your contributions. Chaucer 21:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I admit to not having a grasp of the situation however I understand the protocols and reasoning now. Potentially too late as perhaps your concerns led to me being blocked. Chaucer 21:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your reply. My concerns did indeed lead you to being blocked, though I'm not an administrator and didn't block you myself. I can see in the section below you are engaging with admins, so hopefully you'll be able to become a net positive for Wikipedia, now you have a better understanding of protocols. Thank you in any case for your kind words regarding my Wikipedia contributions. If you are unblocked and ever have any technical queries regarding Wikipedia editing in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too for your kind words and for your words of encouragement. I have one rather banal technical query ATM. I have corrected, under preferences, my signature, however 'talk' at the end of the signature is not highlighted. Is that because I have been blocked? Coalfacesally (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk is linked only when you post to pages other than your Talk page. Notice that, although not linked, it is bolded - that's supposed to be a clue. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Coalfacesally (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coalfacesally. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am sorry that I made the mistake of creating another user and editing a page where I had a COI. I did not have an understanding of the protocols. I apologize unreservedly and will not make the mistake again. I am keen to pursue wiki editing on pages where there is no COI Chaucer 20:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

What articles might you edit? 331dot (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm a performance writer so I'm good at syntax, grammar, copy edits and such. I have interests in the arts, arts-related subjects, biographies, as well as genealogy, Australian history, feminist studies, plants and vintage artifacts. Chaucer 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Coalfacesally, please WP:SIGN your posts normally. Your signature should show your actual username and have links to your userpage and your Talk page. I've linked the guideline to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Bbb23. I understand now that I should sign @Coalfacesally in talk pages. Chaucer 21:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't done it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 I cannot determine why Chaucer is appearing automatically. @Coalfacesally Chaucer 21:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on customizing sigs, but you must've done something for it to happen "automatically". If you add 4 tildes at the end of your post, it should work. If not, someone else more knowledgeable can help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have corrected the issue in Preferences. Thank you @Bbb23. Coalfacesally (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Bbb23. My understanding is that in talk pages when replying the signature appears automatically. When I began this account my user name was Chaucer. Chaucer 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)@Coalfacesally Chaucer 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks @Bbb23, yes is works with the 4 tildes as you referenced. [[User:Coalfacesally|Coalfacesally]] ([[User talk:Coalfacesally|talk]]) (talk) [[User:Coalfacesally|Coalfacesally]] ([[User talk:Coalfacesally|talk]]) (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except one shouldn't use the 4 tildes when the signature is pre-formatted. [[User:Coalfacesally|Coalfacesally]] ([[User talk:Coalfacesally|talk]]) (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have corrected the signature issue now. Coalfacesally (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23. I have acted improperly and I understand that now. I am new to such concepts as blocking. Is it possible that my apology and my pledge not to commit wrongs again will be accepted and my account unblocked? I would like to make future contributions Coalfacesally (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of Blocking

[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).

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

Request reason:

Hi @331dot Thank you for taking the time to enquire re how I might contribute to Wiki in the future. I understand that my behavior was inappropriate and I will never engage in what has been deemed sock puppetry again. My naivety in such matters is indicated by my user name. Moving forward, I would like to contribute to Wiki in positive ways. I reiterate my interests are in the arts, arts-related subjects, biographies, Australian history, genealogy and feminist studies. Happy to do copy edits etc. I read that blocking isn't meant to be a punitive measure, rather to stop future issues. I understand the need for the action but the 'indefinite' timeframe feels punitive. Is there a chance the block may be lifted and if so, when might I expect that to happen? I admit to the mistakes I have made and will not make them again. Many thanks for your time. Coalfacesally (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks are not punitive, but are a way to prevent disruptive behavior. "Indefinite" only means that the block will be removed when you convince an admin to remove it, as opposed to a specific date. I think an unblock is possible here, but you will need to at least agree to refrain from editing about yourself or films you worked on. Such a restiction won't necessarily be permanent, but we will need to see your edit history first so that we know you understand relevant guidelines. If that's okay with you, please say so in a new request. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi @331dot Thank you for your response. I most certainly agree to refrain from editing anything about myself or films that I have worked on. I understand now that COI editing can undermine the confidence of Wiki readers and bring into question the integrity of Wiki articles. I have read up on COI editing, I understand the guidelines and undertake to adhere to the protocols set down. You have my complete assurance in this matter. Thank you again for your time.Coalfacesally (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2023 (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.

Thank you @Daniel Case. I have read the protocols re requests to unblock however I shall read them again. I did initially respond to the suggestion @331dot made for further assurances that I would adhere to COI protocols in a new request, however, as I didn't hear back I thought perhaps I was meant to respond in this request. I apologize for this oversight. @Coalfacesally

Understand and recognize COI guidelines

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hi @331dot Thank you for your response. I most certainly agree to refrain from editing anything about myself or films that I have worked on. I understand now that COI editing can undermine the confidence of Wiki readers and bring into question the integrity of Wiki articles. I have read up on COI editing and undertake to adhere to the protocols and guidelines set down. Thank you again for your time. Coalfacesally (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You seem to have grasped the concepts we are looking for here. Don't let me down. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unblocked, what kinds of articles will you be working on? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @UtherSRG. I’m interested in writing/researching articles related to Australian history since colonisation, which can be researched through genealogical sites. Genealogy is also one of my special interests. As a performance writer myself, I’m keen to contribute to biographies of Australian playwrights. Also happy to execute copy edits and such. Broadly speaking I have interests in the arts, arts-related subjects, Australian history and biographies. Thanks for reaching out, Coalfacesally (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coalfacesally&oldid=1180091321"