User talk:Essayist1

Question

Four edits do not a wikipedian make. What have been your previous usernames? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming to be a Wikipedian, I am a public relations professional with knowledge of HTML.

If you say so. This would disagree. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are you insinuating?Essayist1 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insinuating anything. If that website is yours, you are claiming to be a wikipedian, and I am saying that you have little to no experience. Seemed clear to me when I wrote it, and still is. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts?

Hi there! Could you please clear something up for me - do you have other accounts on Wikipedia? Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wondering how I acquired my knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I study epistemology as a hobby and have therefore read several books on Wikipedia including Wikipedia the missing manual by John Broughton and the Wikipedia revolution by Andrew Lih. I have also read all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Possibly my biggest influence is the work of Heather Ford it is this body of work that inspired me to found WikiNative. In short I have been training myself and developing my business model for many many months and now, I intend to put my knowledge and skills to good use. Essayist1 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question though. Alexbrn (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to answer Alex' question. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have already answered that question. No I don't have any other accounts, I want to do paid editing properly and with full transparency. I have no intentions to whitewash history, and while I am hired to ensure my clients are treated fairly on here, my first obligation is towards Wikipedia. I hope that clears everything up and I hope that we can have a constructive dialogue going forward. Essayist1 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I am hired to ensure my clients are treated fairly on here" <- This is kind of what puzzles me. From your edit history you have been hired once by one single client, but you're writing as though this isn't the case. Whatever, you've been absolutely clear there is no WP:SOCKing going on -- my thanks to you for clearing that up. Alexbrn (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And when you say on your web site "I go to great lengths to ensure my content meets Wikipedia’s guidelines, and where necessary, disclose any conflict of interest" that's just - let's use kind words - exaggeration for marketing purposes, right? Because you don't have any "content" on Wikipedia to speak of, having made just a handful of nugatory edits. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use the term hyperbole for copywriting purposes Glad you like my website by the way. Essayist1 (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Essayist1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

undisclosed paid editing tag

Hi Essayist1

Thanks for your message, really hoping you might be able to help as I have been trying to contact Domdeparis who installed the undisclosed paid editing tag but he hasn't been active on Wikipedia for quite a while now, so I wasn't sure how else to proceed after hitting that dead end.

Domdeparis first brought it to my attention that I shouldn't make any edits on the page of a company I have a connection with which I'm afraid I was completely unaware of until I received his message. The edits I made were to some out of date information on the page - updating the logo and the website URL, and adding in the manufacture of watches alongside clocks as far as I can recall. I'm afraid I'm a complete newcomer to editing on Wikipedia and didn't realise this would be classed as a conflict of interest - I thought it was correcting inaccurate information! - but I'm very sorry for not fully researching the correct procedure. He also advised I created a profile fully NG808 (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)explaining my connection to the company which I've now done.[reply]

Please can I ask what is the correct way to go about removing the undisclosed paid editing tag seeing as any editing by myself has been disclosed and there is nothing on the page that can't be proved to be factual?

Thank you very much Amy - NG808

Hi NG808, so your best bet is to have a quick read through these pages WP:DCOI and WP:ER all the information you need should be there. Also , just a tip, when you write a message, sign it with four tildes like so. Essayist1 (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Essayist1 thanks so much for your help, the pages you suggested were far more helpful than previous information I'd found and demystified the correct processes that I'd been struggling to understand. Well, at least I hope they did and that I'm now making slightly fewer Wikipedia mistakes! I really appreciate your time in helping me to learn so thank you again. NG808 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're the politest Wikipedian I have encountered on here so far. This is the way encyclopaedia writing should be done. Essayist1 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, I see you're having problems getting the AfD to list. Did you add this to the top of the article and save: {{subst:afdx|3rd}}? Or did you do it some other way? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did it some other way. Essayist1 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you need to follow the instructions precisely. For some reason the AfD template hasn't loaded, so it won't let you list it. I will delete the AfD page so that you can start again. Is that okay with you? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me Essayist1 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can start afresh now. It's important to clunk through all the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. The article has been nominated twice before, so you need to choose {{subst:afdx|3rd}}, and add that to the top of the article, as it explains at WP:AFDHOWTO. Do everything that page instructs and you should be fine. (Fingers crossed!) SarahSV ^(talk) 15:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done it wrong, it still keeps listing the archived discussion.Essayist1 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see Bbb23 has deleted the page. Bbb23, are you able to help here? Essayist1 seems to be following the instructions but for some reason the AfD isn't loading properly, and therefore isn't appearing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 17. It's a third nomination. I can't see what he's doing wrong. Are you able to advise? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I just deleted it because (a) you had deleted it and (b) I had no clue what Essayist1 was doing. If what they're doing is legitimate, you need to talk to someone who understands the way these things work technically better than I. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to recreate a deletion discussion for the page as per the wishes of the subject of the page, and most of the editors involved in the previous two deletion debates. Essayist1 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bbb23. I wonder whether RexxS is around; he can work magic with templates. RexxS, Essayist is here representing Alis Rowe, who would like her BLP to be deleted. It has been nominated twice already, and we're having difficulty getting the AfD set up.

Essayist has followed the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. He added {{subst:afdx|3rd}} to the top of the article, saved, then created the nomination using the red link. However, the template did not create the deletion page properly, and when he added the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 17, it produced a garbled version of his new nom and at least one of the older ones. Can you figure out how to set up AfD3? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, sorry, cancel that. MPS1992 has done it. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea at all how to do any of this, but WP:TWINKLE is magic and does all manner of things just by my frantically clicking the mouse button at random moments :) MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992, thanks for sorting it out. I was trying to do it myself just after you did, so I was pleased to see the page load, then momentarily very bewildered to see a comment there already. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 17:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with pinging me anytime, Sarah. I'm always glad to help (unless someone has already beaten me to it). I will echo what MPS1992 says about Twinkle: it takes all of the hard work out of so many routine jobs that I'd be lost without it. It's worth trying out, Essayist, if you haven't enabled it already. Instructions are at the Wikipedia:Twinkle page. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR

You need to read wp:or and wp:v. Your clients telling you something is not admissible as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm not an idiot. Essayist1 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a joke here, but I'm not going to make it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Essayist1! You created a thread called Page move request at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Essayist1! You created a thread called Can I move the page? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Sanders (Gastroenterologist) has been accepted

David Sanders (Gastroenterologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

97198 (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Streetbees (October 23)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not clear how this business is notable beyond the WP:MILL

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:Streetbees and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Streetbees, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Essayist1! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing disclosure

As per WP:Paid, please provide links on your Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where you advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services e.g. your Upwork account etc. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Julian Hearn (October 23)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Julian Hearn and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Julian Hearn, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Sanders (gastroenterologist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Sanders (gastroenterologist) 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/David Sanders (gastroenterologist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (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).

Essayist1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:IMZahidIqbal is not the sockpuppet master. I am the sockpuppet master. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_Lawrie If you unblock me I will declaire all my other accounts and only use this one Essayist1 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, with the long history of deceptive editing and flat out lying when asked about your prior experience, it's not possible to really negotiate any kind of conditions here. I am sure your clients will be able to afford ethical representation. Kuru (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2019 (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).

Essayist1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok it's your call. I used to make more money from undisclosed paid editing, but as my knowledge and skills have increased so has my respect for the platform. I did lie when asked about my previous accounts, if I had told the truth I would have been blocked anyway. I wanted to change my ways, come in out of the cold, operate with transparency and mediate between the worlds of business and Wikipedia, even if that meant earning less. As far as I know I am the only ethical paid editor in the UK. When clients come to me they aren't aware that there are ethical ways to solved their Wikipedia problems. In my marketing materials and client communications I always stress the improtance of ethical Wikipedia engagement. Does that make me a hypocrite? Sure it does, but people change as they grow and my approach to the platform has changed in recent months. You can keep the block if you like, but being tough on disclosed paid editors isn't going to solve your COI problem, it will merely displace it. Essayist1 (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Continuing to blatantly evade your ban is nowhere near "come in out of the cold, operate with transparency". Until your original account is unbanned, you are not welcome here. Yamla (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2019 (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.