Jump to content

User talk:Sophia Radisch

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

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Sophia Radisch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Radisch, you are invited to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Sophia Radisch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --90.214.140.48 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created for Sophia Radisch by Rock Solid Talent Entertainment Ltd. Company register number 8831584 CEO. Philip Taylor Contact number:01646 602117

we wish this article to be public through wikipedia for the encyclopedia about singer/songwriter/actress Sophia Radisch www.sophiaradisch.com as her management we are requesting she has her own wikipedia page. thank you for your help. kind regards Rock Solid Talent Entertainment Ltd. CEO. Phil Taylor.

Unfortunately wishing is not enough - the subject must meet the guidelines for inclusion. What you've done so far is try to create an article on a user account, which is not allowed, and that's the reason it has been deleted three times already. My advice is to determine if she meets the notability guidelines, abandon this account (you can't write an article about Sophia Radisch using an account called "Sophia Radisch"), and then, since you have a conflict of interest, use the Articles for Creation service to submit the content. Please stop re-creating the material in the user page as you've done previously. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rock Solid Talent Entertainment

[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 Rock Solid Talent Entertainment, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bazj (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Sophia Radisch. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rock Solid Talent Entertainment, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Rock Solid Talent Entertainment, you may be blocked from editing. Bazj (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

[edit]

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/Sophia Radisch, 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.

Bazj (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for inappropriate use of multiple accounts and using Wikipedia solely for self-promotion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article about Sophia Radisch may satisfy wiki-notability

[edit]

Sources found, but not yet verified as proper. Some of the interviews might be too WP:ABOUTSELF, for instance.

Burst of coverage #2.

Burst of coverage #1.

Unclear, might be local community access channel, might be legit journalistic news teevee.

  • Sophia Radisch's interview. Sophia will be showcased for a full month on television (Toronto ON Canada) on theMYDM TV show, Rogers Channel 10 in Mississauga, Brampton, and rest of the Peel region; and on TV Cogeco Niagara. https://y___o___u___tu.be/51xLTtA24EU

Found this page via help-request on IRC from the CEO of Rock Solid Entertainment, who is a producer/partner with Sophia in promoting her music. They are interested in learning the rules of WP:COI, WP:SPIP, and WP:PUFFERY , plus of course WP:RS and WP:N and WP:5, so that Sophia can get unblocked. She also may have forgotten her password, and might need a password-reset performed. I have no relationship to the company or the performer. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about getting unblocked , and how to go about it

[edit]

Hello Sophia, I'm 75.108, you can chat with me here about getting unblocked. Have you read WP:COI, and understand what it means? Please briefly explain it in your own words, and tell me whether it is okay for you to personally edit Sophia Radisch, and question number two, is it okay for you to personally discuss things at Talk:Sophia Radisch, once those pages are created of course. Thanks, and sorry wikipedia is such a pain.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it would be a COI if I was to write about myself, my company, family, friends, clients, employers, etc. And yes, I believe thats what the talk section is for and to my understanding, is once the page is created, i should be able to edit it myself.. Sophia Radisch 184.144.144.30 (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. This username was blocked for self-promotion, see the long explanation at WP:SPIP, but basically to put it briefly, Phil was using the account User:Sophia Radisch to write you a homepage here on wikipedia, full of stuff about how you were the best singer in the world, the smartest human to ever live, able to leap tall building in a single bound, that sort of thing. He's a good talent agent, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory-of-talent-agency-advertisements, right? So Phil's pages got deleted, and then later, his user-accounts got blocked, partly for self-promotion. You can sugggest edits about yourself/yourcompany/yourfriends/etc, on the appropriate article-talkpage, but you should not make them yourself. You love your gramma, and you might think her cooking is the best in the world, but you have wiki-conflict-of-interest with respect to your gramma, so you should NOT go and edit the cooking article with the fact she is the best in the world ever cook, make sense? Same story for your singing career, and your corporation. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question #2 , using multiple accounts

[edit]

Okay, so you have a handle on self-promotion, and know not to do it. There is also the question of multiple accounts. Wikipedia strongly STRONGLY 'encourages' people to edit from a single username, and in this case, Phil broke the rules. He was editing as you, which is not allowed since that's impersonation (even though he is your biz manager ... the reason is for copyright law, he cannot take credit for the sentences he saves as 'sophia' because he is not actually legally the same human as you). The other rule Phil broke, was that once the User:Sophia_Radisch user-account got blocked, he just made a new account called WelshMusicLover, and then starting making the same exact edit, self-promotional insertion of RockSolid into some list of music talent agencies, if memory serves.

So, question #2A. If some admin unblocks Uesr:Sophia_Radisch for you, and assigns you a new password, can you give your new password to Phil, and let him login and edit as User_Sophia_Radisch? Question #2B, can you make a shared account like User:RockSoliedAllEmployeesSharedUsername and give that password out to everybody in the compnay? Question #2C, the tricky one, can you edit as 184.144 any more, once you've been unblocked as User:Sophia_Radisch? See the helpdocs at WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET for hints, and feel free to ask if you are confussed. This is an open-book test, the goal is to teach you the rules, not to put you on the spot. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't give my password to Phil or anyone. No, i can't make a shared account and give that password out to everybody in the company, and you're right, that is a tricky question. Once my sophia radisch account is activated, I would only use that. But to answer your question, I would have to follow wiki guidlines, and sign my name at the end of every message. But, if someone was to respond to me there, that would be the only time i would use it. If im not logged into my account, I have to sign wherever I discuss. Sophia Radisch 184.144.144.30 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question #3 the 'final' question

[edit]

Okay, so those were the reasons that User:Sophia_Radisch was blocked. If you understand the problems that caused the block, and understand not to do it again (although in reality, I understand, it was Phil who was doing it before, albeit "in your name" ... once you are in charge of your own username and keep the password private that problem will not crop up again), then you are ready to request unblock. Or are you? if you have questions or are unsure you know the rules, now is the time to ask. Your answers were good, so I think you're ready, no need to be a wiki-expert. But do you understand, to your own satisfaction, no-self-promotion, and no-misusing-multiple-personas? If so, then I think you are ready to request an unblock. Here are the helpdoccs, give them a skim -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. Then follow the instructions in the block-message, the red-box-thingie up above that was put here by Ponyo. If you don't understand how to use the little curly-braces thing, just ask (myself or Ponyo or the various people at WP:Q for instance) and we'll help you along. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am ready to request unblock. Yes, I understand, to my own satisfaction, no self-promotion, and no-misusing-multiple-personas.
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).

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

Request reason:

My account was created for me by my manager and he created it under my name. At the time, he did not understand the wikipedia rules.

Decline reason:

I understand all that has been said; but the fact remains that this account, started by some other person but to which you have in the past had access, is compromised and cannot therefor be unblocked.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:10, 30 July 2015 (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.

Sophia Radisch 184.144.144.30 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to unblock admin, I am uninvolved in the pre-block-editing, and was approached by Phil and Sophia via wikipedian-en-help IRC channel. I have compiled a list of the actions seen under the involved usernames and anon-accounts. Phil the biz-manager admitted[1] that he was the one who created these usernames; as the talent-agent, he was acting as the "administrative assistant" of sorts, which wikipedia obviously does not allow (but by contrast other major websites e.g. twitter work thataway). My recommendation is that, if Sophia's answers to the questions above show she is personally clueful enough to be a wikipedian-in-good-standing, is that she be given the newly-reset-password to User:Sophia_Radisch, which is her legal name in real life. She knows not to let anybody but herself edit under that account, and knows to stick to article-talkpages, too, see discussion above. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discussion of whether to unblock this username, or create a new username

[edit]

Okay, so Sophia, basically your unblock-request was declined based on a wiki-technicality. If you read the helpdocs at WP:COMPROMISED, it explains that, because Phil made edits under the user-account before, for security reasons the admin is unable to unblock this account at the moment. There are two options we can pick from, at this point:

  • option #1, which I recommend but which might take a couple days given timezones and sleep-cycles, is that we need to "demonstrate that you [Sophia] have regained control of your [User:Sophia_Radisch account." For that to happen, we need to perform a password-reset via email, and then have you -- from Canada of course -- log into the User:Sophia_Radisch wikipedia-account, and 'demonstrate' that you have control of it by making an edit her on this page. Do you know what email address is hooked to this user-account, so we can do a password-reset? Alternatively, Phil probably knows what it is, but he might be asleep by now. If we can go this route, then your username can be unblocked.
  • option #2, which is 'faster' and doesn't need us to figure out an email-password-reset, is to simply leave User:Sophia_Radisch as blocked "forever", and create a new username such as User:Sophia_M_Radisch or something like that, where I'm guessing that your middle initial is "M" but you can substitute the real one.

Either one will work, I think. The advantage to the first pathway is that you get your normal name, and that you don't have your normal name wiki-blocked forever. The disadvantage is the time & coordination required. Up to you which way you want to go with this, Sophia, just let me know what you prefer (or ask questions if you have any) and I'll tell you what step to take next. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yes, phil has the password for the first option, which i like best. Where does he need to send it? Sophia Radisch 184.144.144.30 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he *may* have it, but he may not. User:Huon and I asked him to logout of that username yesterday or the day before, which he did. so that we could talk to him on his 90.199 usertalk page. I believe he just had the password saved in his browser at work in the UK, and might not know it now. Anyways, we can still proceed with pathway#1. First of all, you should remove your 2nd unblock-request for the moment, until we have Demonstrated That You Control this username once again. Second, contact Phil yourself (via phone/email/whatever) and get the password from him. Then, from your same PC in Canada that you are using right now as 184.144, click the logon-button at the top, enter username Sophia Radisch, and ehter the password Phil gave you. If you are able to login, then leave a note here on this usertalk ("I am Sophai(sorry meant Sophia) and I have control of my own user-account"), and we can request an unblock. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this makes perfect sense. Thanks so much. Sophia Radisch 184.144.144.30 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am Sophia and I have control of my own user-account" Sophia Radisch (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sophia, nice to meet you. Are you the same human that was posting as 184.144 here recently? Are you quite sure that Phil your biz-partner nad manager will not be editing from User:Sophia_Radisch in the future, and will stick to his own User:Welshmusiclover usrename? Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Yes, I am the same person that was posting as 184.144 just minutes ago. Phil will not edit from my Sophia Radisch account in the future. He will never log in again and he will stick to his own account. Thanks again! Sophia Radisch (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good.  :-)       Let us see if Anthony agrees that WP:COMPROMISED has been wiki-satisfied, before you make a second unblock-request. I think we are okay, but then, unblocks can be tricksy. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While we wait for the admins to cogitate on this wiki-technicality-koan, and decide whether we have done enough, you can read lesson#4 and lesson#5. I think there is also lesson#6, after which you will probably be ready for the wiki-jungle. Keep your chin up, we'll prolly be done with this wiki-training tonight or tomorrow. Well, the initial training... there is always more to learn, if you get interested. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

queestion #4 , some stuff to learn still, now that you are about to get unblocked

[edit]

Give a skim to WP:RS, and then read WP:42. If we want to demonstrate wiki-notability (which I will point out is *very* distinct from real-life-notability), we need multiple wiki-reliable sources (newspaper/radio/magazine/tv/etc) that give some depth of coverage (multiple paragraphs) specifically about [[Sophia Radisch]. Same deal, for an article about Rock Solid Talent Entertainment, unless the WP:42 rule is met (see WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC for the gory details), then wikipedia cannot yet have an article. You are still young, and more press-coverage will appear, which is why I mephasize "Not Yet" as opposed to "No Way Never". Make sense? See also, the list of sources I've picked out from your website. Some are WP:RS, but maybe not all of them. Which ones look borderline to you? Which others, that you know about but I didn't list, might be added to the WP:RS list? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a television interview on my vevo: http://www.vevo.com/watch/sophia-radisch/Artist-Interview-Heatwave-Acoustic/QMAXQ1400201
I see you have this television interview listed in what you have found about me but your link isn't working so here is a youtube link to that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51xLTtA24EU
Here's a magazine interview: http://www.metal-temple.com/site/catalogues/entry/musicians/interview-sophia.htm
And another magazine interview: https://www.joomag.com/magazine/ion-indie-magazine-july-2014-volume-2/0123457001403038686?page=70
I also have another television interview that is not yet released, I will send it here, once I have it.
Thank you so much 75.108! Sophia Radisch 184.144.144.30 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Side note on colons, you have to put one colon, for each new line of info you type -- I've added some colons for you, to keep the indenting organized properly, and make wikipedia tidy  :-)
    So, while we wait for the unblock admin to have a spare moment (they are often extremely busy folks), we can continue your wiki-training. The first thing is, what does it REALLY mean to be a wiki-reliable source? You have a magazine interview, at JooMag.com, right? It's a magazine. Or is it? Wel, it is online. Is that okay? Yes, wikipedia rules are fine with online-zines, and also of course, print-zines. But the wiki-rules for a reliable source are basically, like this: 1) who wrote the article? are they named 'Sophia Radisch'? Well then, obviously in that case, it would not count from the wiki-reliable rules as a source, that demonstrates WP:N-style wiki-notability. See the WP:42 shortcut. Because the thing is an interview, it is not much help demonstrating wiki-notability (though it does clearly prove real-life notability... that is not the same as wiki-notability, though). That does not make the JooMag interview useless, we can ... once wiki-notability is demonstrated ... use almost all of the JooMag contents, see WP:ABOUTSELF.
    But before we stop with JooMag, let us see whether they qualify as a wiki-reliable source. The basic criterion, the rule of thumb, is to see if they have an editorial department, which exercises professional oversight over what they publish. Wikipedia does not consider facebook/twitter/wordpress/etc as wiki-reliable, because anybody can publish anything on them, and nobody is sticking their legal-entity-neck out to back up what is said. By contrast, when CNN or the NYT publish something, they ARE sticking their legal-entity-neck out: if they libel or slander or plagiarize, they can get in real trouble. Wikipedia wants to have our sources be wiki-reliable, so that WE don't get in legal-troubles. So does JooMag qualify? Let us check it out. Here is their homepage.[2] Uh-oh. JooMag is the "FREE interactive service for digital magazine publishing... trusted by 324158 publishers worldwide." That does not sound like CNN, that sounds like facebook, where anybody can upload anything. So who *is* publishing this interview, if not JooMag? It must be "ion-indie-magazine-july-2014-volume-2" from the URL. So let us see if *that* is a wiki-reliable source, even though JooMag is not, perhaps IonIndieMag actually is wiki-reliable. Here is their homepage.[3] But are they wiki-reliable? Rule of thumb, check if they have an editorial staff, and check if they stick their legal-entity-neck-out b using their legal names and publishing their physical address. Here is the staff-page.[4] Nice outfits.  :-)     But outfits don't impact wiki-reliability in the slightest.
    What does matter, is how many editors? Kiki Plesha owner&editor-in-chief, Danielle Pallanti on-staff Assistant Editor, and a bunch of columnists. Not too bad, although usually I like to see half-a-dozen editorial staff, not one plus the owner, so this is borderline wiki-reliable at first glance. There is no physical address, but they have emails for all, and a basic contact-email. Next question, do they just republish press-releases? Here is their submission-page.[5] There is some selectivity, which is good, and some evidence of journalistic integrity, which is good. The main question is, what happened after you submitted your bio, track samples, band photo, and phone/email/facebook contact-info? What was the fee for the interview, if any? Did you place any paid advertisments with the magazine? And is their any other relation, financial or kinship or otherwise, between Sophia/Phil/RockSolid and Kiki/Danielle/IonIndieMag? In other words, this is what matters for WP:RS, and is the same for all types of sources.
    So what about the other sources? Now that you've seen how to analyze one, you give it a whirl. Here is another magazine, Metal Temple, you mentioned.[6] Click the link, then analyzed them per WP:RS. Is it, or is it not, wiki-reliable? Can you find a physical address? Can you find legal names of the editorial staff? Are they sticking their neck out, like CNN does? Leave your answer, or your questions if you have them, here. The key to WP:42 is finding the wiki-reliable sources, which means knowing (or figuring out) which sources are, and which sources aren't, wiki-reliable. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil is Sophia's manager

[edit]

See User_talk:90.199.59.159#welcome_to_wikipedia. I will explain the rule about one-person-per-uid to both Phil and Sophia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil is going to have Sophia contact me directly, so we can get this all worked out. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this is a compromised account; see my unblock refusal above.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sophia, what Anthony is concerned about is a process-technicality, not your understanding of the wiki-rules that Phil broke. Although it was an honest mistake on Phil's part, he made it ten times in a row.  :-)     We might get an admin to bypass the letter of the wiki-laws and unblock this user-account on your assurances, but having seen this before, I recommend that either we "demonstrated control" of the user-acccount by getting a password-reset-via-email properly accomplished, or if you are in a hurry, create a new user-account that we link back to this one, and get the new one approved as non-block-evading by Anthony. See my longer comment above. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am Sophia and I have control of my own user-account" Sophia Radisch (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping User:Anthony Bradbury, is this enough to demonstrate that Sophia is able to control her edits, Anthony? Her manager already said he would not be attempting any such impersonation-mistake again, see User_talk:90.199.59.159 conversation I had with him the other day. (Sophia-fka-184.144 is in Canada and Phil-aka-90.199-and-fka-impersonating-UserSophia the manager is in the UK.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sophia, it looks like this decision may have to wait until tomorrow. I expect we'll get you unblocked one way or the other in time for Christmas, and maybe even sometimes before July is over with luck. User:Huon has suggested that merely making an edit from your newly-secured user-account is NOT going to be enough to satisfy an unblock-admin, and indeed the WP:COMPROMISED policy allows admins a large amount of discretionary judgement. We can see whether User:Anthony Bradbury the declining-admin of your first unblock-request, or maybe User:Ponyo who made the original block, wants to give us a hand here, and explain whether 1) you should make a 2nd unblock request now that you have permanently gained sole control of this user-account, or alternatively, 2) that they recommend you make a brand-new User:Sophia_Radisch_II user-account which is then backlinked to this security-compromised-at-one-point-username (it does not have to be 'sophia radisch ii' if you dislike that ... it can be whatever name you pick within reason ... but note specifically that any new user-accont-name must NOT contain your company-name nor your website-URL since those are both considered self-promotional). I expect we'll get things sorted, soon enough. In the meanwhile, keep working on understanding what WP:RS means, and what the difference is between WP:N nad WP:NOTEWORTHY (and why both of those have WP:RS as a prerequisite). I'll keep an eye out here, from time to time, until this gets fixed. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I am happy to unblock unless you have any objection. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the block to a softblock and removed the autoblock so that Sophia can simply create a new (uncompromised) account controlled solely by her. Sophia, please feel free to create a new account, preferably with a link back to this page to avoid any potential future confusion regarding multiple accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ponyo:: Thank you so much. When I create the new account, would i be able to use the same username? Sophia Radisch (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(( Sophia, I added some colons for you , and the sekrit-magic-wiki-text that will *actually* send a ping to User:Ponyo. )) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(( Sophia, click here[7] to see what I did... just typing the at-sign is not enough, you have to use the ping-template. )) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lesson #5

[edit]

We are still working on lesson #4 about WP:RS, and figuring out which sources count at wiki-reliable, but we might as well work in parallel on the other major wiki-rules. Once you have a list of WP:RS that mention Sophia Radisch, then there is a possibility that you (or someone unbiased which of course in this case is NOT you personally) can write a good wikipedia article on the topic of Sophia-the-singer. However, it is not enough to be mentioned in some WP:RS cites. There has to be some depth, and some breadth. If the coverage is just name-drops, then the article would just be one sentence long: "Sophia exists." To write a GOOD article, with some encyclopedic slash historical value, would require more than just "Sophia exists" , right? So what is necessary, to demonstrate WP:N aka wiki-notability, is that we have a BUNCH of sources, with a BUNCH of depth. In practice, that means at least three (3) good WP:RS sources, preferably published in three distinct calendar-years, with at least half a dozen paragraphs 'specifically about Sophia Radisch, the topic of the potential article being discussed here. Interviews are not so good for this purpose, because interviews are only partly WP:RS and partly WP:ABOUTSELF. Concert-review-articles, album-review-articles, award-being-given-articles, all those are better than interviews; they are not written by Sophia Radisch, the singer herself (nor by her manager nor by somebody she is paying or otherwise compensating e.g. with advert revenue). Does this make sense? Read WP:42 again, and see if it is starting to all come together for you, in terms of what is necessary to justify a dedicated article here on wikipedia, for any specific topic (Sophia-the-singer, Sophia's-First-Album-product, RockSolid-the-corporation, Phil-the-manager, and any other topic). Questions about wiki-notability? If you think you've got it, please explain the quantitative difference between WP:N, and WP:NOTEWORTHY, and give some examples of each type of topic/fact/whatever. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here's a link that shows a list of winners for the 2013 Wire Awards. I won the rising star award. http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2013/04/28/wire-awards-honour-best-in-local-entertainment
I'm also an actress, so heres a link to the movie trailer I was cast as lead in at the age of 13. it's a feature film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUxJzZPrgXE
The IMBD page for the film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2413654/
And heres a review of the film: http://www.cinemablographer.com/2012/08/oiff-review-thirteen-downs.html Sophia Radisch (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  :)
I've added some colons for you, remember you need one set of colons, per line of text you type. Also, note that you cannot use a smiley at the beginning of a line, because it gets interpreted as an indent-colon-command.  :-)     So let us start with Peterborough Examiner cite, is it WP:RS, and if so why? What kind of cite is it, does is demonstrate WP:N, or instead WP:NOTEWORTHY? More generally, what kind of news-coverage is it, international, continental, national, regional, localized? What kind of award is it, intl/natl/regional/local, generally speaking? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it is localized, and its a local award. I still don't understand what WP:N is or WP:NOTEWORTHY, or WP:RS. Even after reading about them. I know the award was held on local television as well. Sophia Radisch (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also have an IMBD page if this helps. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4712153/ Sophia Radisch (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these concepts are subtle. Examples are the best way forward, I've found. We'll discuss WP:N versus WP:NOTEWORTHY here, and discuss WP:RS up above. Reason being, that *only* a source that is wiki-reliable, can be used for showing that the *content* of that source, is either WP:NOTEWORTHY, or WP:N, about a particular topic. For the moment, you can say that WP:RS means factual and 100% true, with no possibility of error. (That is NOT whatit really means; more on that in section#4 above -- but for our teaching-purposes at the moment "100% true" is close enough to WP:RS for the sake of discussion). Now, is the info in the Petersborough source 100% true? Yup, you really did win the award, it really was held that year, and you did get your name in the paper, and since it has an editorial staff and a legal address and such, that makes the source WP:RS, for the moment. So what about WP:N versus WP:NOTEWORTHY? The former means *depths* aka multiple paragraphs about the topic of the article, in this case Sophia Radisch. The former means not much depth, maybe just a sentence or two, maybe less. In this case, the Petersborough source gives your name, and the fact that you won an award, but that's it.
    If, after proper analysis (not just handwaving like we're doing here), the Petersborough source is found to be wiki-reliable, then that is a good thing: we can write something in wikipedia (in an appropriate article) like this, "In 2013, Radisch won the 'Rising Star' award from local magazine The_Wire_(magazine), as part of a contest held in Peterborough,_Ontario.[8]" That's a true sentence. (Maybe... is the Wire in Petersborough different from The Wire (magazine) the UK music zine?) The prose I worte is fairly neutral, And the facts I wrote are backed up, see WP:PROVEIT, by putting the source right after the period, with a source that is actually reflected in what we said. So being WP:RS is good, and if the content of that WP:RS is brief, like listing your name and an award, then the info is WP:NOTEWORTHY -- read what that wiki-rule says again, and now it will make more sense. However, the few words in the Petersborough Examiner are *not* enough to demonstrate WP:N aka wiki-notability, because that requires WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEPTH stuff. "Sophia won award X on day Y in city Z." that is WP:NOTEWORTHY, and by contrast, if the article in the paper was instead titled "Sophia wins award" and had a big pic of you smiling and spent several paragraphs talking about your career and your music and your other awards and so on, then THAT would be in-depth coverage, enough to count towards satisfying WP:N aka wiki-notability, which is used for figuring out whether to have an article about Sophia Radisch or not.
    Obviously, WP:NOTEWORTHY is a permanent status: once it is mentioned in some WP:RS source, the factoid can be in wikipedia somewhere. By contrast, WP:N is a status that changes: in 2012, you were not wiki-notable, because there were not enough multi-paragraph WP:RS sources writing specifically about you. Three years later in 2015, ther *might* be enough in-depth press coverage for an article, there might not (we shall see as we go through the sources). Fast-forward to 2020, when you have been singing for another five years, and almost certainly your Sophia Radisch article will be demonstrably wiki-notable, because by then a BUNCH of WP:RS sources will have covered you in-depth, broadly, and otherwise significantly. Make sense? Also worth noting, whichever year that is, when you get enough press-coverage to pass the WP:N wiki-rule, at that point the article about you becomes permanent as a part of wikipedia, see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Permanent means, won't be deleted as non-wiki-notable, though of course your article still has to follow the other rules (neutral just-the-facts-tone not promotional + no plagiarism from sources aka copyvio + no stuff not backed up by a wiki-reliable source and so on). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

combo-lesson #6 , the "final" lesson

[edit]

There are a couple additional major wiki-rules that you should know. WP:COPYVIO says that you cannot upload pictures you copied off of facebook/youtube/flickr/etc, and that you cannot cut-n-paste text from other websites. If you put information into wikipedia, write the sentences yourself from scratch, and take the pictures yourself with your own digicam, is usually the best policy. There are some exceptions, but ask somebody with more experience to guide you, before you think about something that might be considered WP:COPYVIO. See WP:5 and GFDL, which was the original wiki-content-license.

    WP:BLP is worth a read. Never say anything libelous or slanderous, about any living human, including celebrities and politicians and other famous folks, but also including ANY living human. This applies to all pages, including not just articles but also talkpages and so on, anywhere on wikipedia websites. Note also that other editors are -- with rare exceptions -- always living humans, and WP:BLP applies to your interactions with them, not just when you are talking about living humans *outside* wikipedia. See WP:5 and WP:NICE.

    WP:5 also has something to say about WP:NPOV, the non-negotiable pillar on which wikipedia is based. Wikipedia must be neutral, even when covering controversial content; in practice, this means using a formal tone, and sticking to just the facts, and reflecting what the wiki-reliable sources say, without bias or distortion or WP:PUFFERY. This is about more than just avoiding self-promotionalism, though, it is about making wikipedia's articles FAIR and JUST and EQUITABLE. It's a pretty good system, in my view, although it doesn't always actually function properly (even when I type 'fair' in allcaps :-)

    WP:5 also points out the seemingly-obvious, which is that wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. That is almost tautological, at first glance. But the more you think about it, the more it makes sense, that that should be a pillar, aka one of the wiki-uber-rules that are part of the wiki-constitution. Being an encyclopedia, and consisting of encyclopedic content, means that wikipedia is inherently different from other major websites: it's not a social network, WP:NOTFACEBOOK, it's not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS, it's not the yellow pages nor the white pages nor the list of all bands that ever existed, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and is also not a bunch of other stuff, see WP:NOT. What an encyclopedia *is* can best be seen when looking at other encyclopedias, from the French revolution through today. Wikipedia should cover encyclopedic content, as much of it as there is, see WP:NOTPAPER, but no more than that. If it's not encyclopedic, then it probably doesn't belong here. All the other wiki-rules stem from that. If you think about wikipedia like that, it makes sense why WP:N is so stringent, and why WP:RS is so complicated.

    The last pillar is the controversial one, and I very strongly suggest you do NOT try to use it anytime soon. Wait until you have been an editor for three years and ten thousand edits, or so. At that point, you will understand WP:IAR, which says that any wiki-rule which prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, qua encyclopedia, can simply be ignored in that specific situation. Generally speaking, you almost never need WP:IAR, but when you do need it, you need it badly, and luckily, it is a pillar and thus trumps almost all the other wiki-rules, the only plausible exceptions being the other pillars (WP:NICE and WP:NOT and WP:LICENSE and especially WP:NPOV).

    And that is basically it. If you understand the basics of WP:RS, and the distinction between WP:N and WP:NOTEWORTHY, and you avoid promotionalism/puffery and sockpuppet/meatpuppet, then with the five pillars as your guide you will do pretty well here. You can get involved with the admin-stuff and the noticeboards and the help-channels and the review-procedures, if you want... but the most fun is to be found in editing mainspace articles, that you find interesting-in-the-sense-of-fun but not *financially* interesting nor *friendship-n-kinship* interesting aka WP:COI. You probably should not edit much in the way of music-related articles, and film-related articles, except with extreme care, since that is your industry, and avoiding bias will be difficult. You can edit stuff about politics, and religion, and UFO sightings... but only if you are extremely careful how you step, those are inherently controversial topics, and not much fun. Wikipedia has literally *millions* of articles though, on all kinds of topics. Some of them are super-high-quality articles, but a very large number of them are in serious need of help. Depending on what kind of stuff interests you, and what kind of wiki-tasks you find fun-and-enjoyable, there will almost certainly be tens of thousands of articles you can play with, that have no WP;COI worries and no controversial-topic-beware warning banners. None of this is necessary, you are a volunteer here like most of the rest of us. See the ever-important WP:CHOICE, and the always-to-be-a-redlink-WP:MANDATORY, which says that *you* decide how much and what kind of wiki-stuff you want to participate in, and if you are bored or tired or just not much interested in any given kind of wiki-stuff, that you can completely and with zero guilt just concentrate on doing what you find enjoyable, no apologies.

Any questions about these? The pillars are somewhat obvious, maybe even TOO obvious, since they have some subtle impliciations not often understood at first glance. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 75.108! Thank you for taking the time out of your day to explain everything in detail for me. I understand what WP:RS means now, and know the difference between WP:N and
WP:NOTEWORTHY etc. I see we are still waiting for the unblock. I know I'm still young, but hopefully I am eligible to have an article written up about me. What would you suggest be my next step? Sophia Radisch (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The next-immediate-step is to see what Ponyo says (see above) about re-using your user-name, or a close variation (such as User:Sophia_Radisch_Part_Deux or User:Sophia_Radisch_Reloaded or something). It seems unlikely that you can use the identical name, at the moment, otherwise User:Ponyo would have just let Anthony unblock *this* account. But it also seems prudent, to see what username-variation Ponyo will permit as 'proper' for a clean-do-over account. Maybe User:SophiaRadisch would work best? As for your in-the-meanwhile-steps, we shall test your newfound knowledge of WP:NOTEWORTHY/WP:RS/WP:N/etc wiki-policies, and see how well your self-perception matches the wiki-reality.  :-)       See subsection below, for that. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sophia is free to use whichever account name she would like (assuming it's not already taken). --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks much Ponyo (and sorry about the double-ping). Sophia, you can follow the instructions outlined at WP:COMPROMISED, and make yourself a brand-new-username, I recommend User:SophiaRadisch but you can pick whatever (just make sure NOT to include your corporation-name nor your corporate-URL-address as part of the brand-new-username). Once you have created the brand-new-username, login to that new user-account, and leave a note here on this old-account-usertalk-page, that says something like "I am Sophia Radisch and this is my brand-new-username." Make sense? we'll do the backlinking and new-username-cleaning steps once you've got the brand-new-username up and running. Congratulations on convincing the admins to unblock you, good work. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

brand new account , final steps to tidy up

[edit]

Here is our checklist.

  • #1. overcome autoblock  Done
  • #2. Create a new account  Done
  • #3. make sure to choose a strong password.  Done , and that is how magic-curlies-work. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • #4. Follow the advice in Wikipedia:Personal security practices to prevent your new account from becoming compromised again. (And explain to Phil very carefully that impersonating you or others is a Very Bad Idea.)  Done
  • #5. be aware, your new account may (in future) be blocked as an abuse of multiple accounts, if you are not careful to follow the rules at WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET, so be extra-careful about remembering to login as your new username, at all times, and never let anybody else log in as you. If you make a mistake, and edit while logged out, or similar goof, then do your best to correct the mistake, and identify that it was you User:Sophia_Giroux-Radisch who made the edits in question.  Done
  • #6. With your first edits, clearly identify the new account as a successor account of the blocked account,  Done
  • #7. create the page User:Sophia Giroux-Radisch , and say something friendly like "Hi my name is Sophia Radisch, I'm a singer and co-owner of Rock Solid Talent Entertainment." then save the page.  Done
  • #8. add the magic-curlies-code {{User Previous Acct|1=Sophia Radisch}} to the page User:Sophia Giroux-Radisch , then save the page  Done
  • #9. create the page User_talk:Sophia Giroux-Radisch , and say something friendly like "Hi my name is Sophia Radisch, I'm a singer and co-owner of Rock Solid Talent Entertainment." then save the page.  Done , now this one
  • #10. continue learning the wiki-policies, find something you enjoy doing on wikipedia so you can practice what you have learned (and learn more and more deeply), and then go forth into the pedia and be WP:BOLD but not reckless.
  • #11. good luck
  • #12. this step left intentionally blank -- it is time for Sophia to decide what she shall do, per WP:CHOICE.
collapse away chitchat about how wiki-templates work

As the steps are complete you can go ahead and I will teach you how to mark them off. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sophia Radisch! Here is my new username! I am now in my new account. What do I do now? Thanks again! Sophia Giroux-Radisch (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, nice username.  ;-)   Are you the same human that was recently using User:Sophia_Radisch, the singer/etc? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look over #3 and #4 and #5 up there? Any questions about that stuff? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 75.108! Yes, I was recently using that account but will only use my sophia giroux-radisch account from now on. Can you please check off #3 for me? I have a very strong password. Thank you! Sophia Giroux-Radisch (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the magic curlies code? I don't understand that. What do I fill in there? Thanks ! Sophia Giroux-Radisch (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking about the stuff in step #8. Remember when you used the magic curlies to make your unblock-request? This is the same stuff. To answer you more by example, with some simpler magic-curlies-stuff, check this out:  Done When you click edit, you will see some wikipedia-template-syntax, aka magic curlies, that I used to make the greencheck appear. When you look at the *saved* page (or the previewed page prior to saving) you will see the OUTPUT of the magic curlies command I used, aka the little greencheck icon, which in this case is officially documented at Template:done which is a bit technical but not *too* tough as template-syntax goes. So before you try step#8, let us see if you can copy what I've done, and add the magic-curly-"done"-greencheck-thing for #3. Once you get that worked out, then you will probably understand how to add the user-previous-acct template-syntax to your new userpage. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please check the things off as we go along? I've also complete #9. Thank you Sophia Giroux-Radisch (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping you can learn how to do it yourself. Watch what I do next to check off #9. (You can *see* what I just did to a page, by clicking the edit-history-button at the top of that page, and using the "prev" hyperlinks to view diffs.) Then you imitate me and check off #4/#5/etc yourself. That will help you understand how to complete step#8, and then you can check off that one too. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I did[9] to put the greencheck by #9. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, if you don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about, you can just say you are confused, and I'll fix it for you.  :-)         Templates are a bit of a mental leap. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 75.108! I have checked off things on the list, and I also added the magic curlies code to my sophia giroux radisch page. I'm feeling very proud of myself! Yay! Sophia Giroux-Radisch (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I believe you are done Sophia, congrats. I will ping User:Ponyo and User:Anthony Bradbury, to see if we need to do anything more, or be told anything more.
  • Is everything kosher, and Sophia is ready to be WP:BOLD in mainspace now?  Done, thanks to Ponyo
  • As I understand it, Phil her manager in the UK *is* still blocked, save from editing his own talkpage, User_talk:Welshmusiclover, to discuss unblocking procedures.
  • Due to tech-related difficulties with inability to type colons (perhaps he edits from a tablet with no physical keyboard?), and because he did some impersonation of Sophia and some creation of new usernames for evasion-and-or-socking, Phil may need to wait for the Usual Six Months prior when he is ready needs to request an unblock of his User:Welshmusiclover account, should he wish to return to wikipedia and get himself back into wikipedian-in-good-standing status.
  • I believe that Sophia can, if she so wishes, give Phil some pointers on the wiki-rules, and on the use of talkpages, and other such topics, which will immensely improve Phil's chances of getting his own username unblocked.
  • But they should both read WP:MEATPUPPET very carefully, so that they don't cross the wiki-rules against socking and puppetry and making edits on behalf of other people.
  • Sophia should exclusively use her own newly-cleansed user-account User:Sophia Giroux-Radisch, and not only should nobody else use it directly, nobody else should use it *indirectly* either. Any edit that Sophia makes, whatsoever, should be an edit that *SHE* believes in good faith (see WP:BOLD) to be a proper & encyclopedic edit, independently of Phil's wishes/suggestions/etc (if any).
  • On the other reason for her old user-account and Phil's current user-account being blocked, Sophia should be aware at all times that wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, WP:NOT.
  • This includes herself, her albums, her movies, and so on, plus also her other clients (ThePaRaDoX/etc) and her co-workers at rock Solid Talent Entertainment (not to mention the corporate entity itself), as well as her relatives and friends.
  • Sophia should remember the rules of WP:COI and WP:SPIP, and stick to making suggestions on the article-talkpages or in draftspace, if she ever wishes to see edits made, related to herself or her workplace.
Admins, is this advice all correct, and is there any other advice that Sophia needs to hear, before she goes on her merry way? And also, I understand that it is customary to let cleansed-usernames tidy up their old userpages and their old usertalkpages, if they wish; can she archive all this info here into the page-edit-history, should she wish? Thanks for your help and guidance getting Sophia back up and working. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
some advice from user:huon
75108. ...thanks, appreciated.  Since the channel is quiet, I'll bug you about a third thing.  :-)  Can you verify this advice to sophia slash phil?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sophia_Radisch#brand_new_account_.2C_final_steps_to_tidy_up
+Huon. any specific part?
75108. ponyo has unblocked her, see user_talk:ponyo, and the sock-investigation was closed.  so as I understand it, phil should not edit (and sophia not on his behalf either!) for six months aka Standard Offer.  right?
+Huon. it appears Phil never asked to be unblocked (at least not from his own account)
75108. yes correct.  after he got sophia to contact us, he has not returned that I have noticed
75108. so he the human (and he the welshmusiclover) is still blocked, and has admitted to socking albeit with ignorance of the wiki-laws
75108. sophia-the-human is unblocked, and has a cleanstart username.  but she needs to be careful about doing edits that LOOK as if they were phil-edits, right?
+Huon. I don't see what you mean by "unblocked"; the original account is still blocked, and since she has a new one that won't change
+Huon. yes, if we got the impression that the new account once again is used by multiple people, that would likely be a problem
75108. I means that the human s.g.r. is now free to edit in mainspace as user:s.g.r. even though user:s.r. is blocked.  but the human p.t. is not able to edit, save to request unblock on usertalk, and his user:w.m.l. is also blocked indef.
+Huon. yes, I'd agree with that
75108. I think it is clear to sophia that she should do all the typing, but it may not be clear to her that she cannot make edits at the offline-suggestion of phil, per wp:meatpuppet
75108. isn't there some rule about making edits at the behest of blocked humans?  which phil still is.
+Huon. yes, that's [[WP:MEAT]]
75108. okay.  so the bullet-points at the tidy-up-section, are basically correct?  
75108. sophia unblocked-as-s.g.r, phil still blocked (as any uid), phil should wait 6 mo then ask for unblock, sophia can teach phil, but phil cannot suggest edits to sophia, and sophia should follow the usual rules.  
+Huon. two comments: Firstly, I don't see why Phil would necessarily need to wait six months with requesting an unblock of his own, though it may help
+Huon. and secondly, Phil can suggest edits, but Sophia should only implement them if she independently thinks they're a good idea
75108. huon, okay thanks, that is what I was looking for.  rules about blocking are complicated.  :-)    
75108. can I paste the conversation here into sophia usertalk, or at least, the conclusions, so she knows what to do?
+Huon. go ahead if you think that helps
Per suggestions by User:Huon (thanks), have added some clarifications above. Phil can ask to be unblocked when he is ready, which means, as soon as Sophia has explained the wiki-rules to him, that she has now herself learned. The procedures that we went through to get Sophia unblocked, can also be followed to get Phil unblocked, per WP:NORUSH this can be next week or next year or whatever. If anything is unclear, feel free to ask, either on the talkpage of somebody friendly (which is everybody on wikipedia), or at the WP:Q venues like teahouse and live-help-chat. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pop quiz , open book , optional not required , but recommended if you want to figure out what it takes to demonstrate wiki-notability for achieving a dedicated article

[edit]

More questions, that are trickier, after we see how you manage this first curveball. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this URL is WP:RS. It is factual, 100% true. It's a reliable source. I would think it's WP:NOTEWORTHY. Because it is a brief listing. And what URL for rock solid talent entertainment? I don't see one. Sophia Radisch (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, factual and true are not enough. Remember, wiki-notability and real-life-notability have very little to do with each other. Similarly, wiki-reliability and real-life-reliability have VERY little to do with each other. Verifiability not truth, is the old-school saying. IMDB is owned by a huge corporation (Amazon.com), is a respected-in-the-film-industry resource (especially their top-250 listing), and is chock-full of interesting data. None of that stuff matters one whit; IMDB is also, not in any way, able to count as a wiki-reliable-source. Look at WP:RS again. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..." Seems simple right? But that is wiki-jargon, not English! There is a bluelink from 'reliable' (aka what I usually call wiki-reliable) that points to WP:SOURCES. Here's the meaty bits: every wiki-reliable source must have a source-type, a creator-author, and a publisher. To qualify as wiki-reliable, the source type/author/publisher must be "third-party, published, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Let's take them step by step.
the reasons why IMDB is not CNN.
    Easy one first. Is IMDB "published?" Yup, it's on the internet, check. What about "3rd-party"? Nope, Why not? Well, the third-party-rule means that the author-and-publisher have to be *independent* from you (Sophia-the-singer-slash-actress) and from your corporation (RockSolid) and from employees thereof (Phil/etc). Who is the publisher? Amazon.com is the ultimate publisher. So that is okay, because they are independent from you ... but for instance, if Phil were to make a few billion dollars, and *buy* Amazon.com for himself, then that publisher (and subsidiaries thereof like IMDB) would no longer be 'independent' of RockSolid in the wikipedia sense. But here is the kicker, the author of IMDB entries is, who, exactly? Well, we can check on their website, and we find out that the author is... uh oh, the author is Phil.[10][11] So even though the publisher (Amazone.com) is independent of Sophia&RockSolid, the author could be anybody, and most often, is either the actress/director/agent themselves. So IMDB is not a reliable source; anybody can edit it, that makes it more of a yellow-pages for all films/actresses/directores/etc in existence, or if we *really* want to be cruel, a wiki-slash-fansite.
    IMDB already failed the WP:RS test, but we'll go ahead and cover the last (and most crucial) tests, which is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What kind of rep does IMDB habe? Well, a pretty good one, for a website that anybody can edit. But are there mistakes? Is there ANY fact-checking? Who verifies the accuracy of what the authors (aka the Phil-talent-agents of the world) are uploading as WP:THETRUTH to IMDB servers? IMDB *does* have some editorial-fact-checkers, it turns out.[12] But what are the names of the editorial staff? Whom is editor-in-chief? No names are given. Not only that but no physical address and no telephone number.[13] And look here, this is the REAL truth about their timeliness[14] and accuracy.[15] "...the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors... IMDb shall under no circumstances be liable ... arising out of any use of or inaccuracies in the information. All warranties express or implied are excluded to the fullest extent permissible by law." Translation: IMDB is user-uploaded content, and BigCorporation takes ZERO responsibility of any sort.
    This is why the people at CNN are considered a wiki-reliable source, and the people at IMDB are not. When you see a news story on CNN, you can look up the name of the anchor and their editorial staff, you can get teh physical address of the corporation, and if they screw up in their work and make an inaccurate/libelous/slanderous claim, you can sue the pants off CNN and win millions of bucks in court for defamation. CNN is careful about their fact-checking because they have their own financial necks on the line, if they make a mistake. IMDB is sloppy about accuracy and timeliness, because they don't. One other crucial difference: anybody who has ever worked on any non-pornogaphic film or television project, can get into IMDB. There is very little selectivity;[16][17] the director makes a film, the director's agent uploads all the data, IMDB might or might not bother to check for accuracy, the end. With CNN, even though they are on-air 24/7/365, there is significant *selectivity* in what stories make the news (since otherwise paying customers will drop CNN -- by contrast IMDB charges the *filmmakers* for uploading their pics[18] and thus is going to take as much as they can get by default). Furthermore, at CNN there is editorial *oversight* to make sure CNN reports in a way that keeps them out of legal hot water; IMDB could care less. (Along the same lines, IMDB has little in the way of copyright-checking, whereas CNN is *very* careful about such things.) Bottom line, to get into IMDB, you have to send them a photo-upload-fee, and then add yourself. As long as you have on-screen credit in any of 4 million films (including web-only-releases), they'll take your money. Oh, but if you are derogatory about them -- such as pointing out that they are a paid-content accuracy-free online yellow-pages of teevee -- then they claim[19] it is 'illegal' for wikipedia to now 'link' to them anymore. http://imdb.com Uh oh!
    So what have we learned, in short? First, author must be independent, publisher must be independent, source must be published/available, and somebody *besides* the author must have fact-checked the work (usually this is shown by finding the full legal name and physical mailing address of the editor-in-chief and their staffers) plus the corporate entity must have their legal necks on the line (not "no warranty no liability" like IMDB). Pretty often, you can tell whether a website is going to be wiki-reliable without going through all this work: just look at the KIND of source. What kind of source is CNN? Cable television, news network. That means wiki-reliable, 99.999% of the time. What kind of source is IMDB? Online website, user-edited, for film-fans, charges money for inclusion of films/actresses with proper photos. In other words it is a fansite anybody can edit, combined with an online yellow pages of the film industry. That sounds like the opposite of wiki-reliable, right? Anyways, don't feel bad that you got this one wrong. This stuff is not easy, otherwise everybody would find wikipedia easy. Wikipedia, as Phil learned, is not easy. (The rules-of-thumb are pretty easy: peer-reviewed academic journal-papers, college textbooks, non-fiction books, respected magazines, mainstream newspapers, television news, radio news-programs, and the online versions thereof, full stop. No place for IMDB in that list, right?) But the only way to get an article on Sophia Radisch is to really understand that IMDB is not wiki-reliable, and why. Then, and only then, will you be able to collect together your *actual* wiki-reliable sources, which is a small subset of all the not-so-wiki-reliable-sources you have listed on your homepage. Only then, can we figure out whether WP:N has been demonstrated, and an article is possible. Questions? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 75.108. Yes, It is WP:RS. 100% factual.Not 'technically' important to being WP:RS and best not to think like that, too easy to get yourself confused. This write up has an author and the author can't just be anybody, like IMBD for example. It is WP:N. Do you think I have enough Wiki Reliable sources to have an article about my career? If not, what do I need to do in order to get a wiki article written up? Thank you so much for your help. Sophia Giroux-Radisch (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author? Who is the publisher? That URL looks like it is your website, right? (hint hint). How can that URL be considered 'independent' from you and your company? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your bigger question, if you cannot demonstrate WP:N has been achieved for the topic Sophia Radisch, by finding/providing impeccably wiki-reliable sources, that are specifically about the topic, and cover it in some depth aka multiple paragraphs, then the only way you can get a wikipedia page is to convince the canadian military to conquer the USA, make the wikimedia foundation your personal slaves, and rewrite the wiki-rules thataway. The *reason* that wikipedia is a top-ten-in-the-known-universe website is *because* of the five pillars, and because of wiki-notability, and so on. Besides military conquest, the only other option you have is to be yourself. If you want to paint an awesome masterpiece, first concentrate on becoming an awesome person, to badly paraphrase the old zen koan. In other words, if you want to be in wikipedia, then concentrate on making yourself the best singer you can be. Press coverage is a *result* of excellence, not the other way around. If you become real-world-notable, and real-world-awesome, then soon enough you WILL have enough in-depth independent WP:RS sources to demonstrate WP:N in spades.
    Not fair? What about the singers and films in wikipedia right now this second, that slipped past the wiki-cops, that cheated on their WP:N exams, and are full of puffery and self-promotion? Well, simple. Now that you are once again a wikipedian in good standing, or rather, now that you have gotten Phil out of the way so that you can be a wikipedian for the first time, you can help with that stuff. See a singer without wiki-reliable sources? Tell me or Ponyo or A.Bradbury or Huon about it, or just bring it up at the WP:Q venues that seems most appropriate (teahouse or live-help-chat) and somebody will take care of the problem... or if there is no problem, help you learn more about the wiki-rules, so that you understand why there is no problem. So maybe, for step#12, you'll decide to become a huntress, seeking out puffery, looking for IMDB used as a ref (it is okay to use as an external link please note ... just not a ref aka WP:RS). Or maybe, you will become a defender of singers and actresses and films about to get deleted, helping find sources, teaching people about the true meaning of the wiki-jargon. Maybe you'll get interested in being an editor-qua-editor, writing up excellent fully-ref'd articles on French flowers, Chinese poetry, Australian beaches, extrasolar planets, or whatever other interests you have now (or grow to have... you are still young). In the worst case, overcome with your jealousy of Mariah Carey and Elvis Presley and Hannah Montana, you will get so frustrated at all the dumb wiki-rules that you decide to just *force* your name into lights on wikipedia... which is, umm, what Phil tried to do, and found out the hard way, that is not what wikipedia is for, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion.
    See step #12, it is a serious step, that you really will have to fill in at some point, all by yourself, with your wiki-goals; I'm just here to show you the wiki-ropes. Only you can decide which wiki-path you will follow. WP:CHOICE is the zeroth pillar. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break (tm)

[edit]
  • #3. We're not done with #2 yet, but might as well ask about this movie trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUxJzZPrgXE Who is the author? Who is the publisher? What type of source is this? Does it fit in teh usual list at WP:SOURCES? Is the publisher independent? Is the author independent? What is the name of the editor in chief? Can we sue for slander and libel, which means the publisher&author will be careful to fact-check themselves? Is WP:RS satisfied here? If not, why not? If so, what kind of depth does this movie-trailer have, would it be WP:noteworthy on the topic of Sophia Radisch, or would it be WP:N on that topic? What about on the topic of Rock Solid Talent, is the movie trailer WP:NOTEWORTHY or WP:N about that distinct topic? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sophia_Radisch&oldid=1079540478"