User talk:Romano Writes

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Mr Smith Bot/Great HealthWorks has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Romano Writes, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Aaron Booth (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Mr Smith Bot/PCSO-524 has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PCSO-524, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at PCSO-524, you may be blocked from editing. Combined with your attempt to create Greath HealthWorks, it seems you are mistaking Wikipedia for an advertising venue. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you do not forget to log in: you and 66.55.168.2 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) are making the same edits on the same articles. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Mr Smith Bot, contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 15:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Romano Writes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

That username would, as far as I know, be fine, However, there is another issue too. Your editing so far has been substantially promotional, which is against Wikipedia policy. As well as offering to change your username, can you tell us what editing you expect to do, and reassure us that you will not seek to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request(s)

One unblock request is sufficient. Please pick one of your unblock requests to delete. Alternately, you may delete both and post a new request. Your user talk has been in this situation for two days; please attend to this quickly. Tiderolls 00:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just responding to the questions asked above. I guess I was incorrect in putting the answer in a request bracket? Sorry. I will condense the two requests into one:

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).

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

Request reason:

Question asked by JamesBWatson: "As well as offering to change your username, can you tell us what editing you expect to do, and reassure us that you will not seek to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium?"

Answer: Yes. I am very sorry. These two entries are my first attempt at writing a wiki entry. I was only trying to follow the directions given to remove promotional language in the Great HealthWorks description so that it could be approved, And to add sections and add categories in the PCSO-524 article as directed. I figured if I was encouraged to do it for the PCSO-524 entry that I should also do it for the Great HealthWorks entry as well. I guess I went too far? I'm trying to figure this out as I go and implement all the suggestions given by the Wiki staff. I am not trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Description and notability only. Once again, please forgive my feeble attempt. I really am trying to follow the rules. Thank you.

Questions:

What is your association with Great Health Works?
Have you reviewed the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?

Please let us know. By the way, I thought your PCSO-524 article turned out pretty well. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Thank you! My association with Great Helthworks espouses a dual role. I have been contracted by the company to perform "brand reputation management" to help drive down an erroneous "Pissed Consumer" bot that comes to the top of the page on all the Google searches for "Omega XL," their main product. I came to this position as a direct result of deriving great benefit from the company's product, hence I believe in it and feel the company deserves to be referenced. This merges the duality of my role: I had met the owner of the company in the gym and was given a trial sample of the product to help with a nagging shoulder problem from which I have suffered for many years. I found tremendous relief from the product and became friends with the owner. Our friendship uncovered the fact that I own an internet marketing company and that he is having some internet marketing issues, one of which being this Pissed Consumer bot that is wreaking havoc on his online sales. He asked if I thought I could help him get rid of it. I agreed to try. One of the areas my team and I though would help was if the company and its main ingredient had a Wikipedia entry. I was naturally very cautious about exploring this area because of your COI policy (which I have indeed read) and wanted to be very very careful in how I approached this. I believe Wiki is an incredibly valuable resource and would not care to bastardize its purpose by contributing anything that violated the COI guidelines, or its neutral stance. Unfortunately, the company had little in the way of notoriety to report. The only notable aspect, I thought, was the grant it received to create over 300 new jobs; especially in this economy. I knew it was a long shot, but I became very hopeful once I read that your latest editor review stated that this entry seemed "salvageable" if I removed promotional language. That's all I was really trying to do with my edit. I was very please the "PCSO-524" entry was accepted (and that you thought it came out well), and all I did was attempt to use some bit of language contained in that entry (since it was approved) in the Great Healthworks entry. I feel pretty horrible that I was blocked and am being accused of spamming. This was the last thing I wanted. I have never before attempted to write a Wiki entry and I seem to be stumbling pretty badly and am not completely Wiki literate. I just want to write a neutral entry that fairly portrays the company and its limited notoriety. I appreciate all the direction your team has given me and all I feel I was doing was trying to implement it. I have no intention of trying to use Wiki as a sales or promotional tool. I feel that the company is worthy of an encyclopedia entry because it is a good company that markets an effective product, fairly, at a fair price and its warranted growth is good for the community and the economy because of the numerous jobs it has created. I would feel that way whether I was contracted by them or not. I would have no problem disclosing this association, as per the COI guidelines. I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help undo the mess I have made. I hope i have entered this request and your questions in an appropriate manner. If not, please direct me to a resource where I can figure out the proper way. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Oh come on, you're promoting this stuff even in your unblock request. Max Semenik (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2012 (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.

E-mail

I have received your e-mail. Time was of the essence regarding the state of your user talk. I cannot act on your unblock request for two reasons; first, I do not act on user name changes. This is solely a matter of preference and a prerogative of my capacity as a volunteer on this project. My second concern regards your statement "acting as directed" and the admitted relationship with a principal vis-à-vis the article subject. My aversion to this type of "directed" editing is not shared by all editors, and when executed properly it violates no Wikipedia policies or guidelines. However, I cannot help but believe that when articles are created, or content added, by individuals with a close relationship to the subject of their edits, then a neutral point of view cannot be assured. I do understand that you have been patient and, most likely, have something to offer the project. I will approach other administrators regarding your case to ensure a fair appraisal of your block. Please believe that my actions are not directed by any ill will toward you personally. Thank you again for your patience. Tiderolls 01:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the "promotion" evident in the unblock request was a detailed and honest answer to my question about conflict of interest. While I agree the block was fair for the initial reasons given, I recommend the editor post another unblock request detailing the voluntary restrictions he would be under if unblocked. The editor must understand that creating new articles in areas of a conflict of interest, or adding promotional material to existing articles, will result in a new block that cannot be appealed. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of PCSO-524 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PCSO-524 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/PCSO-524 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. slakr^\ talk / 05:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Romano Writes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Thank you for your responses and the further opportunity to make my case to be unblocked. I will be as brief as possible.

First, while I agree that ignorance is no excuse to break the rules, I’m hoping for some consideration due to this being my first experience with Wikipedia. I have read the rules and, while I agree that having a close association with the subject of my edit is cause for concern, the rules did not completely rule out my ability to edit on the subject. At least that was my understanding. I completely agree with any administrator’s concerns about maintaining neutrality with such an association, but, with all honesty, all I have been trying to do is follow the recommendations of the Wiki staff to edit my submissions. I was very happy that the project “PCSO-524” was accepted and encouraged by the compliment that it had turned out well, and further encouraged by the administrator’s comment that my “Great Healthworks” project seemed “salvageable.” In retrospect I agree it was foolish to try to implement language from an approved edit into an unapproved edit in order for it to pass. It is unfortunate that “PCSO-524” is now nominated for deletion and that my block prevents me from removing what seems to me now to be promotional language.

Moving forward, if you decide to unblock me, I will first go ahead with the user name change. I inherited this user name from an associate who first tried to write a Wiki article and gave up. It would certainly not have been my choice. Further, I assure you that I am not trying to abrogate the intent of Wikipedia and use it as an advertising medium. I explained my position in my pervious unblock request as honestly as possible. If you would consider even a restricted unblock, my intension would be to only contribute honest, accurate and neutral edits. I must say that, as someone with no experience editing Wikipedia, that your controls are rather strict. Considering the enormity of this resource I can totally understand why. My intension is to learn better the rules and culture here and only offer appropriate material. I have made my living for the last 30 years as a writer and am considered an expert in the fields of health, fitness, nutrition, supplementation and performance enhancing protocols. I do believe that my contributions and edits to Wikipedia would benefit the community. I hope you can excuse my initial ignorance and give me another chance to improve. I am willing to agree to any restrictions you may impose and will understand completely if you will not remove my ban. The fault is all mine. Thank you.

Accept reason:

It seems to me that you do understand the conflict of interest issue and the promotion issue, and that you intend to avoid such problems in future, so, on that basis, I am unblocking to allow you to request a username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Also, you should be aware that Wikipedia polciy is that an account is for one person, so you should keep the account for yourself, and not allow someone else to "inherit" the username from you. I hope that you can now contribute constructively, and that there are no further problems which might lead to your being blocked again. To be clear, the unblock is based on the conditions that you change your username to comply with the username policy, that you do not edit in ways that might reasonably be seen as promotional, and that you do not edit in ways where your potential conflict of interest might be seen as problematic. Personally I regard it as preferable that you avoid editing at all on subjects where you have a potential conflict of interest, but if you do so you must avoid doing so in ways that might be seen as partial or non-neutral, otherwise you are likely to be blocked again, and very likely stay blocked. I hope you understand that this is intended not as a threat, but rather as an attempt to make clear to you what the situation is, to help you avoid further problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being unblocked. Now go to WP:CHU/Simple and get your username changed before you do anything else. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for unblocking me. I have made the user name change as requested and will certainly abide by the rules.Romano Writes (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCSO-524 AfD

You mentioned in your recent unblock request: "I must say that, as someone with no experience editing Wikipedia, that your controls are rather strict."

Well, now you've pretty much had a taste of them, from being blocked to having your first article go through the AFD wringer. That's how "peer review" on Wikipedia works. Articles written by someone with a conflict of interest will always attract closer scrutiny too.

The deletion discussion resulted in improvements to the article and investigations of the sources, to the point where one or two people changed their view from "delete" to "keep", and the article survived because the AFD discussion was closed as "no consensus". "No consensus" on Wikipedia usually means "the status quo stands". However, any closed AFD can be brought to Wikipedia:Deletion review if an editor feels the closure was wrong and should be reversed. That's more peer-review, but it focuses on the closing rationale rather than re-hash the arguments already made. It's unlikely to happen for PCSO-524 however. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to reply on my talk page. I see replies on the talk pages of others on my watchlist.

I also think you need not worry about the article being deleted. It has already survived a deletion discussion.

As for further contributions, I would say you should exercise good judgment:

If something you want to add is non-controversial and neutral, then add it.
If you feel that an addition may be considered promotional due to your conflict of interest, then propose it on the talk page. If no one objects after several days, feel free to make the change.
If you want to create a new article on another topic in which you have a COI, create it in your own userspace first User:Romano Writes/MyDraftArticle (name it appropriately), then when you are satisfied that it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and has good sources, use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to gain acceptance for moving the article into main article space.

There is nothing preventing an editor with a COI from creating good content on Wikipedia. Everyone is encouraged to be bold in making edits. Someone with a COI should just use good judgment and exercise caution when needed because your edits will attract more scrutiny. More cautionary actions are proposing changes on talk pages, creating drafts in your userspace and using WP:AFC for new articles.

One current practice of yours that you need to change ASAP is your citation style. Look at the {{cite journal}} and related templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc.). Use them. See how I used them to change your citations in the PCSO-524 article. Note that the problems many people found with your citations is that you provided only the title and author of the articles, as well as irrelevant information about the institutions that employed the authors. That isn't sufficient for verification. You need to say where and when something was published, and who published it. The citation templates will help you fill in the correct information.

Continue writing articles on topics that meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (WP:GNG and WP:CORP for example) and cite them properly using reliable and verifiable sources, and you should be fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again I greatly appreciate you advise and help. I will do as you suggested and keep my fingers crossed. I am committed to learning the Wiki culture and protocols and continue adding good content. If it were not for you, the kind actions of JamesBWatson, I wouldn't be here now saying this. So, again, Thank you. --Romano Writes (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCSO-524 survives AfD: the way forward.

May I apologise for having to some extent contributed to what must have been a very unwelcoming start to editing Wikipedia. I'm afraid it did at one time look very much as though your only purpose was posting what amounted to spam for a non-notable product, but I can now see that there is more to it than that. On the other hand, I never thought that such words as "hoax" were justified, and I did, as you may remember, unblock you to give you another chance. I think the closing administrator in the deletion discussion was right, under the circumstances, to close it as "no consensus", and although it would have been more satisfactory to have had a clear consensus to keep, the end result is that the article is kept. I have read your message on Amatulic's talk page. I am pleased to read that your experience has not put you off editing Wikipedia for ever. You say "For someone who has made a living as a science writer in the health and fitness field for the last 25 years I'd say it was indeed a bit embarrassing." I can understand that, but in many ways the sort of requirements needed for writing Wikipedia articles are different from those required in writing elsewhere, and many people when first contributing to Wikipedia find themselves falling foul of the accepted standards in one way or another: certainly I did.

There are various ways you can propose changes to the article without fear of conflict of interest issues. Probably the simplest way is to post a message on the article's talk page, Talk:PCSO-524, suggesting the change you have in mind. However, if you just do that, there is a very good chance that your message will stand there unnoticed for a long time, so you can add the tag {{helpme}} with your message, which will cause the page to appear in a list of pages where there are requests for help, and sooner or later someone who checks that list will read your suggestion, and, if you are lucky, will respond to it. You can also ask particular editors for advice or help about particular ideas for changes. I will certainly not mind if you ask me for help, but Amatulic, who has been so helpful to you recently, and has more of a practical scientific background than me, may be more helpful, if he/she is willing to accept such requests. Also, bear in mind that a potential conflict of interest does not completely rule you out from editing the article, and as long as you restrict yourself to unambiguous factual and neutral edits, there should be no problem in editing the article directly, using more indirect approaches whenever there might be doubts as to your neutrality. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary. You had every right to think the way you did in the beginning and I do remember it was you who unblocked me to give me the second chance I needed. When my associate suggested to me that I take over his attempt in writing the article I knew, especially after reading a good bit of the pages on writing articles, that this project would be a challenge. In the end I feel that while the controls are indeed strickt, I was fortunate enough to come across both you and Amatulic who treated me very fairly. I think the strickt controls are necessary for a resource of this magnitude so I'm not surprised I was given a tour of the wringer. It all worked out for the best and I look forward to offering this site some good content. Thank you again for unblocking me and thank you for your advise above. You can be sure I will be taking you up on your offer of further advise down the road.--Romano Writes (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of PCSO-524 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PCSO-524 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/PCSO-524 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]