User talk:Dd adrian

Dd adrian, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Dd adrian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I understand what was done wrong in this case, and I am looking forward to fixing the misunderstanding. I failed to make clear that User:Adrius333 and User:Dd Adrian were both my accounts, but I never tried to hide it either. When asked if I was employed or remunerated by ATICA, the answer was NO, which is the truth. They are just friends of mine who I am helping since they´re not familiar with Wikipedia formatting. However, if you go to my contribution with the User:Dd Adrian account on Talk:DealDash on 26 July 2016, you can see that I start the conversation by mentioning that I am a Community Manager for DealDash. The reason for creating a second account was not at all deceiving, and having two accounts has never been used to my favour in any of the talk pages. I was not trying to avoid scrutiny. I just wanted to keep my DealDash work account separate from editing the ATICA article, which is something that I was doing during my free time in a non-remunerated way. Would it make sense to have both accounts open again and use the User alternative account template to make clear that these are both my accounts, as stated in WP:SOCK#LEGIT? Thanks for taking the time to read my explanation Dd adrian (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked following discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Sorry to ping you again, I know you must be busy, but I would really appreciate if you could take some time to revise the block on my accounts. I'll try to be brief as recommended on WP:NICETRY. Here are my points to explain what happened, and why I believe the accounts should be unblocked:

1. My User:Dd Adrian account was created to contribute to the DealDash article. I clarify on my first comment on Talk:DealDash on 26 July 2016 that I am employed as a Community Manager by the company.

2. My User:Adrius333 account was created to start the ATICA article. When you asked me if I was employed or remunerated to edit the ATICA article, I said no, since I am doing it completely pro-bono. I did let you know that they're my friends, and that's why I am interested in creating this article.

3. I want to make clear that the reason why I created the User:Adrius333 was not to avoid scrutiny or hide anything in any way. I just wanted to keep my work-related contributions separate from my non-remunerated work for ATICA. I do understand now that multiple accounts should be indicated with User alternative account' template, and I will do that right away when the accounts are unblocked.

I hope I have been able to present the case clearly, and appreciate your time to investigate the course of events. I am aware of what caused the confusion and commit to fixing it. I would appreciate having the accounts re-opened so I can continue my contributions in an open and honest way. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Dd adrian (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so here's the deal. To get the first part out of the way, I do see you've been open about being paid here, so I'm willing to take your word for it that the ATICA stuff was a favor for a friend. That aside, thus far, you've been doing rather promotional stuff, both on this account and the other, and then have violated the rules on sockpuppetry. You have offered to clearly link the accounts, and a check found no others, so that goes in your favor.

The promotional editing has got to stop. So, I'm willing to unblock you, on the condition that you do clearly link the two accounts, that you do not create any more new accounts, and that you create any new article as a draft (you can do this by prepending "Draft:" to the article name, such as Draft:ATICA), and have it reviewed by articles for creation, who will move it into mainspace if appropriate and call attention to any issues if not. While drafts still can't be blatant ads, more leeway is afforded to drafts than articles in the actual encyclopedia, so that'll give you some breathing room to work on it. Additionally, please review what we mean by neutrality (both content and tone must be neutral), and also review the guide to editors with a conflict of interest. Like I said before, we don't forbid the practice of paid editing, but we do at some point expect people who engage in it to know what's expected here and not be a time sink. Unfortunately, most of us don't get paid to do this, and the time of volunteers is one of our most valuable assets. I do realize it's probably different from a lot of what you're used to, so you are welcome to ask any questions you might have. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade:I appreciate the clear instructions. I commit to these terms. I will clearly link the two accounts and will not create any new accounts. Any new articles will be created as a draft, I didn't know this option existed, but it makes much more sense for me in order to correct the issues and adapt the language to a 100% neutral tone. I really appreciate for your offer to help with any questions, will definitely keep reading and learning so my edits comply with Wikipedia's terms. Thanks for your help. Dd adrian (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thanks for unblocking, User:Adrius333 has been linked to my main account. Will also take your guidelines into consideration going forward, and avoid sounding promotional or salesy. Have a great day.

@Seraphimblade: I have created Draft:ATICA with a less promotional tone and added sources. Will articles for creation review it automatically or should I request it somewhere? Thanks for your time. Dd adrian (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put the following at the top of the article (without the "nowiki" tags, if you're reading the page source):{{subst:submit}}. That will put it into the queue for review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ATICA (October 29)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Deleted twice for both no claims of significance and then also advertising, that's still what this Draft is, therefore please focus with only the best in-depth third-party news sources overall, and no press releases, trivial passing mentions or interviews.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ATICA and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ATICA concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:ATICA, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:ATICA

Hello, Dd adrian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "ATICA".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 20:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]