User talk:Midwesterngal
| This is Midwesterngal's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Hello, Midwesterngal, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Weinhold (July 26)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Weinhold 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.
|
Hello, Midwesterngal!
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! KylieTastic (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Weinhold (July 29)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Weinhold 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Weinhold (August 19)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Weinhold 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.
AfC notification: Draft:Matt Weinhold has a new comment
[edit]
paid editing
[edit]
Hello Midwesterngal. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Midwesterngal. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Midwesterngal|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have left multiple comments stating I am not being compensated - and no one is replying. I'm unclear as to what the proof is other than I keep trying to address the reasons for being declined? Which is stupid weird. So - if an article is given things to fix and a person tries to fix them, the logical conclusion is that the person is getting paid?
- What kind of reasoning is this? I mean is there some other connection I can explain or validate that you have proof of - because it certainly can't be that insane. "They're working on this article still when we give them feedback - they MUST be getting paid - I have a feeling!" This is madness. I am absolutely not getting compensated for this.
- And, to be blunt, I have no idea what one would charge for this level of trying to navigate this labyrinth of craziness where everyone denying gets to be 100% right all the time and the advice points to articles that are highly subjective and no existing article can be used as guidance because - apparently - all articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. I'm just trying to fix this article and now getting accused of things that I didn't even know existed. Midwesterngal (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Will I get a reply? I mean, I know no apology is coming - but does everyone get their "impression" to be fact? Where the article gets to no longer be edited because your "feelings are facts?"
- I can't use source material as proof a person actually wrote or was in something - but you guys can use "feelings" to prove something that's not happening? Midwesterngal (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Matt Weinhold has a new comment
[edit]paid editing again
[edit]
As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Midwesterngal, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Midwesterngal|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am not being paid - I responded to this before. I have no idea how to prove a negative. I have zero dollars. I'm just frustrated at this point.
- This is my first article, and to be frank, is going to be my last. The experience is kind of awful. I'm a horror fan and that's how I know of him.
- Frankly, that we're now down to "if you feel that someone deserves an article, you must be getting paid!" is now a thing. Good grief. Also - if I were getting paid, I'm clearly super terrible at this. Midwesterngal (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is still there - so I'm guilty because the powers that be say so? Literally zero dollars - how do I prove to you I am not getting paid? Midwesterngal (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Midwesterngal, you don't you need to prove it and honestly as the last reviewer who reviewed the draft and rejected it, I had no idea you had received notices about possibly being paid. What I can tell you is that I spent about three hours trying to find suitable sources and came up with little. I found bits and pieces here and there, with his best year as far as coverage being in 1992, but none of it was enough meet notability. Now going back and looking at your queries at the AfC helpdesk, you have accused reviewers of dogpiling (really? I responded to you on the talk page AND did at least add some sources I found), gatekeeping and "we found more reviews and more information". Who is "we"?? The issue with Weinhold is he simply does not meet the notability guidelines, at least at this time. My best advice for you is if you are only interested in writing about Weinhold, then best to move on. However, if there are other subjects that interest you, then start by compiling reputable secondary sources (like mainstream media) that have written in-depth about the subject without any prompting (no promos for shows, no interviews, etc.) and summarize what they say. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I still have the notice on top that I can no longer add or edit additional items because I've been marked as "possibly being paid." (By the by, the guidelines on that are stupefying - apparently this is based on the editors experience to simply "feel" out the notion of someone getting paid.)
- This is where "dogpiling" comes in - these items are sourced - and looking at numerous other articles trying to meet this threshold and _asking numerous times to have sources verified_ which have not gone answered, feels very much like this is now dogpiling. Other "notable" individual pages use far less with articles that actually don't even mention them (but mention the show?) and others use the actual video/media. If I can use those appearances, this would greatly expand the media that I'm able to use. But, hey, there's a rule against looking at other articles as guidelines! And no one actually has to help out by answering things directly.
- Everything about this feels arbitrary with a set of "guidelines" that are, at best, byzantine and designed to give anyone an out for denying just about anyone a Wikipedia page under any rules, save those that generate almost constant news coverage. For significant amounts of time.
- I have access to more things behind paywalls, but no one is assisting, and the accusation is still there with no one removing it. I want to add podcast interviews and actual performances and credits since that seems to be infinitely acceptable on other pages, but no one is saying whether or not it is. Midwesterngal (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- So is this the new thing - no one will remove the "probably getting paid" marker?
- I've tried to figure out the process to get this looked into for some sort of arbitration and it's a byzantine process to say the least. I assume this is by design?
- Honestly, this is really just a nuclear option for the editors, isn't it? Accuse the person of getting paid with no proof (I still don't know what it is beyond someone having a "feeling"). And yet, the article itself apparently needs X^X^10 power of resources to prove what can be found in credits via strong secondary sources.
- And no one will reply to being able to use credits which has been done in many, many, many other articles? Midwesterngal (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed the paid notice from the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Midwesterngal, you don't you need to prove it and honestly as the last reviewer who reviewed the draft and rejected it, I had no idea you had received notices about possibly being paid. What I can tell you is that I spent about three hours trying to find suitable sources and came up with little. I found bits and pieces here and there, with his best year as far as coverage being in 1992, but none of it was enough meet notability. Now going back and looking at your queries at the AfC helpdesk, you have accused reviewers of dogpiling (really? I responded to you on the talk page AND did at least add some sources I found), gatekeeping and "we found more reviews and more information". Who is "we"?? The issue with Weinhold is he simply does not meet the notability guidelines, at least at this time. My best advice for you is if you are only interested in writing about Weinhold, then best to move on. However, if there are other subjects that interest you, then start by compiling reputable secondary sources (like mainstream media) that have written in-depth about the subject without any prompting (no promos for shows, no interviews, etc.) and summarize what they say. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Weinhold (October 22)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Weinhold 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Weinhold (October 28)
[edit]