User talk:Craneshore

April 2023

Hello, I'm Belbury. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hildebrand 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. You're adding a lot of examples of characters appearing in this one book of short stories by Brice Stratford that doesn't have a full article. Do you believe that these otherwise unexplained "character is incorporated into" edits improve the individual myth articles? Belbury (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TylerBurden. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks. Redlinks are useful and can often be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" link (in the tools listed at the left in desktop view) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! TylerBurden (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Anglo-Saxon paganism. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Anglo-Saxon paganism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Craneshore. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sigmund, 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:

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

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. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Quack

Admins and other Wikipedians in good standing, see:

Author they were spamming for's COI account that has same editing pattern, suspected sockmaster:

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

(Hasn't edited in years, blocking on principle)

Recent accounts:

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

This account started with identical spam edits after Craneshore was warned about spamming. Both accounts were created to spam after this one started the articles:

Jonto95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked account that created BLP for author they are spamming for:

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

- CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]