Jump to content

User talk:Hamsey75

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

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Hamsey75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page New Norcia, Western Australia did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  JarrahTree 09:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take careful consideration of what this means - editing wikipedia means adding reliable sources, anecdotal additions will be probably removed as WP:OR and also undo your edits as they are not supported. 09:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Hamsey75, 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! JarrahTree 06:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hames Sharley (May 22)

[edit]
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 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.
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Hamsey75! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hames Sharley (May 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by QueerEcofeminist was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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.
QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 04:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Hames Sharley

[edit]

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 Draft:Hames Sharley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 04:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

[edit]
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

  • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
  • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2020 (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).

Hamsey75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I would like to appeal this block as I’m not sure why I am being accused of promoting my business or organization. I have been on Wikipedia for over 3 years. I have only recently started making contributions on subjects known to me. The first ones were for New Norcia which is a subject I know quite a bit about having worked with them so thought my contributions would be useful. Then I decided to create a page for a company my father started nearly 50 years ago as it has made a very worthy contribution to Australian architecture and they were not listed when many other companies whom have made far less of a contribution were. It seems that my username Hamsey75 and the subject page Hames Sharley may have caused the concern. The accusation above saying I’m using the account for advertising or promotion is unjustified. I do not work for this company, nor is the username associated to any company. I followed exactly the same templates as used for all the other architectural firms listed and the language was the same too. So I have no idea why you are labeling it Spam. I spent ages finding independent citations,and now the page has been unjustly deleted wasting heaps of my time. There are many examples under Australian Architecture category that are blatant marketing in my opinion but these are published?

Decline reason:

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.

Someone else will review your request. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about; once unblocked, you are welcome to point out any inappropriate articles or article content, we could use the help. I had thought your username was a blended form of the company name; if it isn't, the username isn't a problem, but you still need to review conflict of interest if you are editing about your father's company. The sources you provided were the company website(a primary source and press-release type article or routine announcements, which do not establish that your father's company meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable company, and caused me to think that you were a company representative. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

[edit]

You did make some unsourced edits to New Norcia, Western Australia in February. Please see WP:42 for sourcing requirements. I find it puzzling that you say "three years". Perhaps you could elaborate? In May, you created Draft:Hames Sharley, which was deleted under WP:G11. Please see User:Deepfriedokra/g11 for my usual deletion notice for G11. Because of the similarity between your user name and the name of that business, it is felt your user name violates WP:CORPNAME. To be unblocked, you will need to choose an individual user name, agree to not edit about Hames Sharley, and describe what constructive edits you would make. Please see User:Deepfriedokra/decline promo for a fuller explanation of my usual unblock conditions for this type of block. Any other admin may modify the conditions for unblock or unblock without discussion without concern for my toes. Cheers, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra The account was created three years ago, though they didn't edit until this February. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies, I meant 3 months. Yes, unsourced, was learning and now know. I have access to their entire archive and was planning on providing sources once I had some more time to upload. Regarding the block. I’m still confused as to if you made the mistake blocking me than why I have to change my username which I use a lot elsewhere. Individual, it can’t get more - is my surname! Wow friendly place this. Sure, there’s a small conflict of interest, but I’d purposely made the page as content as neutral as any other example and hoped others would edit and contribute to it. My draft was written with exactly the same neutrality as either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassell_(architecture_firm) or dozens of others under Australian Architecture category. And as mentioned they’ve made a huge contribution to Australian architecture over half a century, designed some iconic buildings and been awarded several of the countries highest Institute Of Architects awards, so pretty sure they meet the criteria of being notable... Seems you guys got hung up on a username rather than the article content. Don’t worry, I won’t bother making any positive contributions based on experience so far and the 5 hours of wasted time. I’ll see if I can find somebody else to make the page and recognize their worthy and notable contribution. Great way to onboard new contributors.

Finding someone else to make the page is still a conflict of interest, because you would be asking them to do it to avoid your own conflict of interest. I am sorry that you feel unwelcome, that isn't anyone's intention. We are just trying to work to see that policies are adhered to. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, could you provide any advice as to how one could go about getting the page added for all the reasons mentioned above? Can one suggest a page be created if they believe it notable? Hamsey75 (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a suggestion at Requested Articles, but there are thousands of requests there and it is unlikely that someone would act on your request anytime soon, if ever. Are there any subjects that you want to edit about other than your father's company? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) Thanks for the advice. I was planning on making other useful contributions on subjects known to me yes. So I'd appreciate being unblocked.

It will help the reviewing admin to know what topics those might be. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was incorrectly, though now understandably blocked for advertising/spam because of the similarity of my username to the company name, however, as established above as I don’t work for the company, I don’t believe it was advertising or spam, yes I have a personal relationship, so I see the conflict of interest now. I have now read that policy and understand I should have gone about creating the article differently. There is a lot to learn about the processes of creating articles on Wikipedia and in my opinion, experienced editors could offer some more helpful assistance, as I thought I was following the feedback suggested and adding citations to prove notability and as mentioned previously was writing very neutrally following the lead of other examples. Though it appears once the username became a red-flag everything escalated based on assumption rather than communication. If an admin had simply pointed out or questioned that they believed there was an issue with my username we could have discussed it and then they could have helpfully suggested an alternate path. I have read up on the Company Username issue now and understand why it was such a red-flag. Knowing what I know now, I would have happily noted my Conflict of Interest in the Drafts Talk page. That said, you’ve asked for what other topics I might contribute to if unblocked, well that could be pretty broad. I could start with pointing out inappropriate articles or article content, as you mentioned you could use the help ;-). Otherwise anything in the design, arts or tech space off the top of my head, before this experience I was looking forward to contributing and look forward to it in the future. Hopefully the above explanation is enough to prove to an Admin that there was nothing malicious in my article creation, simply a now understandable misunderstanding around my username and my failure to disclose a conflict of interest when creating the article. Both of which I’ll make sure don’t happen again. Hamsey75 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2020 (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).

Hamsey75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is getting ridiculous, you've now blocked a guy at work whom I had asked for help when I was creating my first draft article to put in an info box thingy as I couldn't work out how to do it. We have a fixed IP at the office, I'm not abusing multiple accounts. Wow, way to see the best in people first hey... I've done my best to explain everything above. If there any admins out there who'd like to discuss, look at the facts, review the original article that was apparently such heinous spam and make an informed judgement or do you all just jump to worst-case conclusions? The response so far is disproportionate to say the least.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 08:11, 14 June 2020 (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.

Please read about meatpuppetry. We have no way to know who is sitting at the computer operating a particular account. If two accounts are doing the same thing, we must treat them as if they are the same person. In this case, you asked your guy at work to edit for you because you are blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having done some off-wiki digging I am pretty sure that even if the above is true, there is still undisclosed paid editing going on here. The company for which both User:Carlmanson and the owner of this account appears to work for does brand identity and PR work for both the Benedictine Community of New Norcia and Hames Sharely. Yunshui 雲水 09:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a read, again jumped to worse case theory, but that’s not what happened at all if you read my message above which I thought did a pretty good job of explaining (though clearly I don’t view the world as though everyone is up to no good, so didn’t see it from that perspective...) I’d simply asked him for his assistance well before I was blocked NOT because I was blocked (rather important difference IMO) when I was first writing the article as I couldn’t work out how to do the info box thing and I was trying to make my first article as good and as useful a contribution as possible. Then the article then got tagged for deletion (when the conclusion re: my username was jumped to) and then I got blocked. In that order. I’m starting to understand why your getting short on volunteers... Why would anyone go to this much trouble? Oh I just saw second message now. Wow! As mentioned I started editing New Norcia first and was going to start including images etc from their library as we’ve done really cool interpretive signage stuff for them and thought it would improve the article. No the Monks aren’t paying me to do that.... Definitely NOT PAID editing - with my experience so far how could anyone make money from that. We’re not hiding what we do, wouldn’t have been hard to do that digging as we’re using our real names! Real masterminds with criminal intent... We don’t do Public Relations in our company, Brand design, build websites, design signage, yes. Had my wiki account since 2017 and had decided to start contributing as mentioned before on subjects I knew about in my spare time. We have heaps of great historic assets and images from lots of interpretive projects. So I started editing on New Norcia first as I could easily see some corrections that would make it better and learn a bit about how to use Wiki. Then couple of months later decided to create an article about my dad’s company as I knew lots about that and thought they should be on there as heaps of their projects have their own wiki pages. Neither of these was in a professional capacity. I give up. My explanations above are sane and logical. Your disproportionate response is not. I’ve wasted enough time on this. Hamsey75 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hamsey75&oldid=1063247420"