User talk:London Hall/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:London Hall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Speedy deletion declined: Renato Abella
Hello London Hall, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Renato Abella, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previously declined, do not re-tag, even if you disagree. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SOWHY 09:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Saw that it was taken to AfD - thanks for the heads-up!.London Hall (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Paid editing?
Hello London Hall. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:London Hall. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=London Hall|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jytdog - may I know why you think I'm being paid to edit? London Hall (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- As the message above states, your edits appear that way. Please do respond to the question. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am not paid to edit, and I do not have a COI with any of the articles I've worked on. London Hall (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying.
- If you do not understand how to clean up an article, please do not remove tags related to promotional and conflicted editing. They are there to attract actual clean up and the problems are generally not just cosmetic.
- One of the most common paid editing tasks is to remove tags, and paid editors do exactly what you did on the Gobin article. They make a few desultory tweaks and strip the tags. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, thanks for the clarification. I'll refrain from removing tags for now and just do my bit helping with general clean up. In any case, advice is always welcome. London Hall (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, see you around the encyclopedia! Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, thanks for the clarification. I'll refrain from removing tags for now and just do my bit helping with general clean up. In any case, advice is always welcome. London Hall (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am not paid to edit, and I do not have a COI with any of the articles I've worked on. London Hall (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- As the message above states, your edits appear that way. Please do respond to the question. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jytdog - may I know why you think I'm being paid to edit? London Hall (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Refik Anadol
Hello London Hall,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Refik Anadol 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.
Jbh Talk 15:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at People's Mujahedin of Iran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- User:Pahlevun: as noted, I'm happy to discuss further on the article's Talk page. London Hall (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Pahlevun (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)