User talk:Lisabofita

Welcome!

Hi Lisabofita! I noticed your contributions to Maeve Binchy and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 20:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Brickner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beverly. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezekiel Lewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montgomery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing pattern is highly suspicious and your edits (particularly those adding unnecessary links and references) have been disruptive. We don't need paid editors here. Graham87 (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about William H. Kerdyk, Jr.

Hello Lisabofita, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, William H. Kerdyk, Jr., should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William H. Kerdyk, Jr..

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Graham87}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Graham87 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed your block to only affect the article and draft namespaces so you can participate in the above deletion discussion. Graham87 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87 I am new editor, so I kindly request the opportunity to rectify any edits that may have inadvertently been against policies, rather than facing immediate suspension. Is it customary to ban inexperienced editors outright, without prior warning, even though they may not be fully acquainted with all the policies? I am uncertain about the specific edits in question, so I would greatly appreciate a clarification.

So far I have submitted 2 new articles, the 2nd (William Kerdyk) I was compensated for, and my compensation has been disclosed in my userpage. Mr. Kedryk is a local politician in my area. We were introduced via a friend with the intention of my assisting in creating a page for him. I have tried my best to comply with policies and not post anything promotional sounding to his page. I have also done substantial edits to several other pages, which I hope were productive.

I would appreciate any feedback and your considerations for my reinstatement. Lisabofita (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When your editing pattern is as suspicious as it is, yes. I'm not saying any more to stop you from getting ideas. Graham87 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you clarify the nature of the suspicions? I am uncertain as to the specific concerns that led to this action. Given that I have openly disclosed my compensation for contributions related to the Kerdyk page, I respectfully request further insight into the grounds for my suspension. Additionally, I extend my sincerest apologies for any inadvertent violations of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and I am committed to rectifying any such issues promptly and appropriately. Lisabofita (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been using some sort of semi-automated tool to add random links and references in disruptive ways. And you've been editing too quickly. I don't think unblocking you would be good for this project. Graham87 (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

Since the deletion discussion has closed, I've reblocked your account (also see the above notices). You are not welcome here. Graham87 (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal the block on my Wikipedia account as I believe the reasons given by the admin are unfounded. The admin claimed that I used an automated tool to insert references too quickly; however, I only used the Link insert tool in the visual editor, which efficiently creates references. It seems the admin might be unaware of this tool and mistakenly assumes manual link insertion is the only method. Moreover, for an edit to be deemed disruptive, it must negatively impact Wikipedia. I request examples of any edits I have made that are either negative or not compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. As a new editor, I acknowledge that I may have made some mistakes, which should warrant a warning rather than a complete ban. Additionally, while I did create a page for which I was compensated and disclosed my paid editing, this is not representative of all my contributions. My edit history shows numerous productive edits, such as those on Draft:Printer's_Waste and Ezekiel Lewis, demonstrating my commitment to improving Wikipedia. Lisabofita (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your bludgeoning and editing pattern don't outweigh what productive edits you have made. It's not true that an edit itself must be negative to be considered disruptive if the overall behavior of the editor is. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2024 (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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Printer's Waste (July 15)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Should be merged into Errors, freaks, and oddities

In particular, three of the sources are actually just about the Nixon Invert,

If this should be its own article, we should try to make it more clear why this is significantly different than EFOs

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Printer's Waste and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lisabofita! Having an article draft 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! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking admin Graham87 gave his reason of my block as: "You seem to have been using some sort of semi-automated tool to add random links and references in disruptive ways. And you've been editing too quickly" This is completely untrue, I have not used any tools and would not know how to do that. I have also not added random links. Everything I added was researched. He claims my edits were done too quickly!!! I like to do things quick, but that doesn't mean they were not researched or done improperly. He said my edits were suspicious but didn't provide any examples as to what edit was low quality. But finally, I have just been checking his Talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graham87#Query and there are questions about his blocking activity for poor reasons and I believe my block is just another example of his poor reasoning for blocking me. I have done nothing but productive edits and even disclosed my compensation with a new page I tried to make. Thanks.Lisabofita (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I do not find credible the explanation regarding William Kerdyk, given the history of promotional editing in relation to Kerdyk that is noted by a participant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William H. Kerdyk, Jr.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 24 October 2024 (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.

Could you explain what your process was for identifying articles to add references to, and for finding said references? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just browse pages and sometimes I clicked on random article, until I found pages that have citation needed tags or looked for sections or sentences that were lacking references. If I did something wrong, it is because I am a new editor, but I am learning, but I do not think I deserve to be banned. The admin could have simply given me a warning and provided constructive feedback and instructions. I think it is apparent from his talk page that he has been jumping the gun too quickly and banning several others, just like me, without providing a warning first. I am still not sure exactly what I did wrong, as that was never disclosed.

Also, I didn't just add references. I added new content to several pages. Here are examples:

Robert Hutchinson (author)
System1
Ezekiel Lewis
Worldview Entertainment

Also, I tried to submit Draft:Printer%27s_Waste, which has been declined, but I was planning on improving and resubmitting, because the declining admin asked why it is different from "errors, freaks, and oddities." It is different because EFO's are a subset or type of Printer's waste, but there are some other types: unfinished products, damaged items, and failed printing trial, so there needs to be a page for "Printer's waste" which is a major subject of interest in Philately

I would appreciate reinstatement. Lisabofita (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This partially answers my question, but does not address the second part--how do you find new references to add to an article, and how do you decide when/where to add a reference. In particular, I'm looking at edits such as [1], [2], [3], [4].

Additionally, an explanation of how you came to seek/accept a paid commission for writing about William H. Kerdyk, Jr. would be appreciated. You appear to have complied with paid editing guidelines for that one article, so taking a contract isn't an issue in itself, but the timing of that together with suspicious edits elsewhere raises questions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a) regarding the reference additions, I Googled these subjects to see if there was anything new I could add to the pages. Sometimes I would not find new information to add, but I would find new references to add. I thought it was beneficial to add an additional reference. If I am wrong, let me know.

b) regarding William Kerdyk, I came across his name in an article and noticed he does not have a Wiki page, so I decided to contact him to see if he would like a page made. He agreed to hire me. Lisabofita (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]