User talk:Draykyle

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Draykyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! Aboutmovies (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of OrderZone.com

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 OrderZone.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I have replied to your request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 June 6. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:SimotionDiagram.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SimotionDiagram.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Automotive robotics.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Automotive robotics.jpg, which you've sourced to Jessica Mlinaric. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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) 00:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Automation Console.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Automation Console.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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) 00:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Blurry Products in Factory.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Blurry Products in Factory.jpg, which you've sourced to Jessica Mlinaric. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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) 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fareportal

Hello Draykyle,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Fareportal for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ultra Mobile, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Target and SIM. 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) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Columbia general election, 1952, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preferential voting. 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) 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it seemed appropriate - it could also be 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting' Draykyle (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest?

Hi- I'm interested to know why you've created pages on such a varied range of subjects. Please disclose any conflicts of interest you may have with the subjects, including being paid to edit, per our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of the Sharestates page. I've been helping a friend, and should be within Wikipedia's ethical standards. I've just been reading the rules again, and I didn't realize that paid editing was now permitted; I may do some in the future, which I will disclose as per the rules.Draykyle (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're aware, in my initial message, I referred to the existing pages you have created/expanded, not just Sharestates. It is a stretch too far to accept that your friend wants you to 'help' by improving the pages of such varied subjects. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, can you unblock my account? The user Gurutsm is not me, and I am not using, and have never used, any form of 'sock puppet' accounts. This is my only Wikipedia account. What happened in this situation was that I was working on a couple of pages, but was camping for an extended period with little electricity or wifi, so the Gurutsm user published them. In my reasonably long history as a Wikipedia user, I may have perhaps been in the grey area for some edits, but I have always tried to write nuetral, un-commercial articles and edits. I didn't know the new rules for paid editing until Jcc alerted me to them, and as I said to him, I might start doing specifically paid edits, which I said I would disclose. The Audionamix page which I was working on in my sandox was in fact a paid article (although Audionamix did not pay for this). I'm not sure if I should have disclosed this on my sandbox or not - I was going to disclose when I put the article up. It's perhaps moot now as I don't intend to publish that page - it was done based on a miscommunication. I believe the rough draft of the article I have there is basically good, if anyone wants to turn it into an article themselves. You don't need to convince me of the importance of keeping Wikipedia honest - its a particularly annoying thing, reading through an article and seeing some little bit of obviously paid manipulation. Then worse than that is the stuff you don't see. I probably wouldn't even have started with paid editing now, but I think that its just going to happen anyways, so given that, the best arrangement is for people to do paid editing, but disclose it properly. Draykyle (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having read your appeal and your comments and looked over your history, I'm declining this request. I could write a whole bunch here (much of it duplicating Berean Hunter's statements below) but it boils down to a simple issue of trust - based on your behaviour and comments, I don't trust you to edit within Wikipedia's policies. I see no benefit to the project in allowing you to resume editing here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:06, 25 September 2017 (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.

Non-admin comment: Looking at information from the investigation it would appear you have been using another account. Just opinion though. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 11:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Berean Hunter and I both found your previous explanation not credible and I believe that this is just more of the same.

Your unblock request is full of ambigious, duplicitous statements- above, you said that "you were helping a friend", now you're saying that "you might have been in the grey area for some edits"- ridiculous given that you've either been paid or you haven't.
You state that you might start doing "specifically paid edits"- there is no such thing as "not specifically paid"- it's either paid for or not.
Equally, you brush aside the fact that it is highly unlikely, impossible even for "the Gurutsm user" to know about your sandbox draft and move it into mainspace, and even more unlikely that they would do it twice.
It is quite hard to just pick up paid editing, especially when you have no prior experience/work to show to prospective clients. Yet immediately after the COI notice, when you claimed to learn the rules about paid editing you found a client immediately- Audionamix. That's not really believable...
Again, pointing out to the reviewing admin, when users receive COI notices, they tend to deny the claims, or say "yes, I understand, but that's not the case with this article". Draykyle went "aha, so I can start doing paid edits then? Great!". I've given out many COI notices, but have never seen that kind of response.
Additionally, I'll point out what raised my suspicions in the first place. Draykyle has written/rewritten articles across a wide range of companies in often completely different sectors. Examples include Sharestates, a real estate investment company, Payoneer, a payment company, Zeta Global, a marketing company, OneTravel, a travel company, Ultra Mobile, a cellular network and Ashley Stewart, a women's clothing brand. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this editor has been engaged in undisclosed paid editing for quite some time and is not being remotely close to truthful.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Draykyle (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC): Well, I'm not sure what exactly I can tell you. One thing I would say in my defense is that I would do sockpuppetry in a much less obvious way if I was going to do it - that's easy enough to do right? I’d like to think my articles, while perhaps not brilliant, would suggest at least the sophistication to manage that. I could be one of those people with whole armies of sockpuppets, logging in from different IP addresses around the world, with different size screens and browsers, getting in big arguments with myself, pre-empting the criticism. YOU, Berean Hunter, would be my sock puppet, if I was like that. But I'm not, and never will be, even if you were to permanently block this account. Wikipedia is a sacred space.[reply]

I never said anything to suggest that the Gurutsm user was a coincidence - what gave you that impression? I talked to them and they sounded like they would be willing to say they are a separate account. Not that that would prove too much, wouldn't be so hard for me to do that if they were a sock puppet.

Unfortunately I don't think I can talk about the edits I did, for reasons unconnected to Wikipedia. In general terms, what I've read so far suggests there are plenty of grey areas - just to give examples, there are thing like helping someone for free, but thinking that a paid internship just might come your way later if you did, or helping out someone you feel you owed a favor to, maybe some mentorship arrangements, or any number of things. Looking over it all I feel confident I'm in the white ethically.

One way or another, you can go ahead and assume they were all paid edits if you want to - I'm not sure what I could say in my defense there. In that scenario I would just say, well ok we’ll just assume I was, but then even if that were true, I didn't know the rules (a couple of years ago I remember reading an article that said paid editing was alright on Wikipedia, actually - I can't remember the source though), I got my first warning, and will disclose any paid edits. Admittedly the only evidence you have that I'll disclose in the future, in that scenario, is that is that I disclosed the Audionamix sandbox, but I did do that. Is that permanently blockable? For anything that could be considered a 'grey area' edit in the future I'll disclose the exact nature of it, or disclose it as a paid edit.

You say 'I've given out many COI notices, but have never seen that kind of response.' Maybe that's good - in a world where you can't really prevent sophisticated clandestine commercial editing, maybe you should embrace it when someone does disclose. Then the community can monitor the edits, tell people, hey, that bit about all the little awards you won, that's too much, and you have to put in this bit about that bad press you've got, etc.

Doing anything else is just going to push commercial editors underground. In this hypothetical situation where I'm doing paid edits for all these big companies, and now, maybe I could start having them disclose, then blocking me off is just penalizing me, them, for doing right. Wikipedia had a debate, and decided paid editing was necessary, right? That happened for a reason, maybe because it’s a little bad, but it’s much better than these sophisticated operations with their armies of sockpuppets.

Depending on where exactly you set the bar for notability, there are maybe thousands, or tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of companies, people, organizations, out there that justify a Wikipedia page, but which no editor has gotten around to writing an article for. I think it’s alright for them to hire someone to write those articles (or at least plead their case for notability), as long as it’s done according to the paid disclose rules. I don’t really see a big downside to that, maybe it’s a bit of work to monitor them, make sure every little detail of the article is how it should be, but its less work than chasing down the sophisticated operations. There's also scenarios like where someone hires a paid gun to attack a site, someone’s competition wants their page written badly, has an army of sockpuppets. Could be if you sit down and logic it out, the best response to that could end up being having a disclosed paid editor defend the page, in an environment where paid disclosure is accepted for that by the Wikipedia community. Could be any number of situations like that.

Anyways, there’s my piece... Sorry to go off about this - its a bit of a read - but I think this is an important issue. Perhaps this case can play a small role in setting precedent for these kinds of things. Can I have some users unconnected to either Jcc or Berean Hunter review this?Draykyle (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment:

You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or:
that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or:
that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range).

It also helps to clearly state your reasons for requesting an unblock because:

If the background or reason isn't clear, your request may be declined out of hand.
In complicated situations, the reviewing administrator may not want to spend a long time reading your whole talk page and all of your contributions. Information and evidence not in your unblock request may not be read.
If you make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking.

Also, you must disclose if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, if that is the case. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 19:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sharestates for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sharestates 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/Sharestates 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fareportal logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fareportal logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ultra Mobile Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ultra Mobile Logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of ECi Software Solutions

The article ECi Software Solutions has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A WP:PROMO page for an unremarkable private company. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Draykyle currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

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. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of SiMotion

The article SiMotion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication notability. since creation in 2012. All sourcing is affiliated.

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. Loksmythe (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ashley Stewart Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ashley Stewart Logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]