User talk:Stravensky
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi Stravensky! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 03:53, Wednesday, October 11, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]- Hi Stravensky! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 03:53, Wednesday, October 11, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]- Hi Stravensky! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 03:56, Wednesday, October 11, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
The article Patrick McKenna (Entrepreneur) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are quotes or examples of articles written by subject.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Patrick McKenna (Entrepreneur) for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick McKenna (Entrepreneur) 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/Patrick McKenna (Entrepreneur) 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. reddogsix (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Patrick McKenna (CEO) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are mostly quotes and include articles written by subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Checking references
[edit]Some of the references are written by subject where it says he is a contributor for publications. Added several third party references about the subject as well.
April 2019
[edit]
Hello Stravensky. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Stravensky. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Stravensky|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Smartse - thank you for bringing to my attention. I am not being compensated for my edits, I just like finding new pages to create. I am happy to pause further edits of a certain type if you can provide guidance on anything that appears improper. My goal is simply to be a helpful contributor.Stravensky (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Nathan Pettijohn for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathan Pettijohn 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/Nathan Pettijohn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Thanks for creating Earth's Call Fund.
User:Doomsdayer520 while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
Thank you for your new article on Earth's Call Fund.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Speedy deletion nomination of The ActOne Group
[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 The ActOne Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActOne Group. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 "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 deleted 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
An article you recently created, PatPat, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 13:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Bradley J. Edwards (March 19)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bradley J. Edwards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bradley J. Edwards, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Stravensky!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! scope_creepTalk 01:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: PatPat (July 28)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:PatPat and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:PatPat, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
The article Scott Ehrlich (producer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Promotional article, apparent vanity piece. Grandiose claims (that themselves do not reach the bar of WP:NCREATIVE), but no evidence of notability - particularly, no RS evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE seems to be entirely other people called "Scott Ehrlich".
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The article Todd Camhe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Promotional article. Claims of notability are not evidenced in RS coverage - both RSes listed are passing mentions by the producer of the film Sister. A WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage of Camhe. If this article was based on the extant RSes, it would be one to two sentences. There is no reasonable prospect of this article passing WP:NCREATIVE.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Your submission at Articles for creation: PatPat (December 4)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:PatPat and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:PatPat, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Concern regarding Draft:PatPat
[edit] Hello, Stravensky. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:PatPat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Jenna Bryant for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Bryant (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:PatPat
[edit]Hello, Stravensky. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "PatPat".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Christian Ferri for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Ferri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Proper way to insert images in infoboxes
[edit]Hello @Stravensky. I am @Archer1234. I noticed your recent edit to Dusty Slay where you added an image to the infobox. I want to let you know that the way you added the image was not done according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE).
- When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used. Simply supplying the file name will work. For example, to use File:Image PlaceHolder.png, you can simply use
|image=Image PlaceHolder.png. Captions should be specified with the|caption=parameter. Every infobox is different and the documentation for the infobox in question should be consulted for the proper parameters to match the image and caption.
- To fix
Do not use the full image syntax:
|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]
Instead, just supply the name of the image. So, in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg
and optionally:
|caption=Some image caption.
Hopefully you will find this information useful for your future editing. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. — Archer1234 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Likely undeclared paid editing
[edit]
As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Stravensky, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Stravensky|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia.
I see that you previously stated you are not being compensated for your editing. However, from your editing it appears you are creating and editing articles for promotional purposes in collaboration other people who have a clear conflict of interest. You've been editing for almost six years now, so have had plenty of time to familiarize yourself with the relevant behavioral and content policies. - Hipal (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Hipal (talk) Sorry in advance for the long reply but I want to be thorough and help each other make sure we are on the same page. I appreciate your time and support. I enjoy editing and creating pages and do my best to write them objectively and based only on reputable sources for notable people and organizations. Yes I was asked this once before (4 years ago) relating to the “Earth’s Call Fund” page because I relied too heavily on their press release and company website—a lesson I learned from and I haven’t repeated that mistake. Since then, I believe the pages I’ve edited and added all provide value and are notable and written in similar fashion as similar pages. That note asked me to pause editing until I had replied — which I did reply promptly and honestly. I will happily comply again and pause any future edits until we are on the same page and I clear up any potential issues that you see.
- Of the 20 pages I have created over the past 6 years that were approved and are active, I only had any sort of affiliation with 4 of them. My work is only in social media community management and paid media, so that is all any client of mine has ever paid me for (directly or indirectly). Of those 4 clients, none of them asked me to work on their Wikipedia page and none of them paid me for it. It has always been my understanding that it was against the rules to accept payment for editing so I have never done that and I only write them based on facts I find online, I have never asked a client if they wanted a page, my website does not have a listed service for editing Wikipedia, and I have never advertised or promoted work for Wikipedia in any way ever. I am happy to share more on my identity or my work scope, but to be clear I have never charged anyone for Wikipedia work and I have always tried to write them objectively. Even with the 4 pages that I had an affiliation with, they only ever paid me to manage their social media and it was my own desire to write the pages on my own time and with nothing in return. If I should provide a disclosure that I have had contact with those 4 people, I am happy to provide that in order to avoid any future suspicion of being paid for editing. It is simply something I enjoy doing and I would like to learn from any of my errors to ensure they do not happen again.
- I noticed the advert flags you’ve added to a handful of the pages I created. If there are specific notes or issues with how I am contributing please let me know and I will change my process and will not repeat any specific mistakes listed (or I can edit those pages if you’d like). For instance, the “Dusty Slay” article was flagged saying there seems to be a close connection between the subject and myself, but I have never met or communicated with Dusty Slay. He never asked me for a page and I did not ask him for payment. I listen to two of the podcasts that he hosts and decided I would write a page for him as he is a public figure. To be clear, he is not a client of mine in any way (directly or indirectly) and I don’t even know anyone who knows him personally or professionally. I have never worked on his social media and I gained nothing from writing his page. The “Robert Kalich” page is similar, as I have never met him or communicated with anyone about his page. I read one of his novels and decided to write the page.
- As you can see from my history of edits, I have mostly been approved as providing helpful edits and references on notable people and organizations, and my wish is to continue to keep my account in good standing. I promise that if I were making money from creating pages or marketing this work as a service I would have probably written more than 20 pages in the course of 6 years. This is a hobby of mine that I enjoy and want to continue getting better at. 4 of the pages in question are of people I have worked with and known in another capacity, but I have always made it a point to never ask or charge money for any edit on Wikipedia I have ever made, as I knew that would not be in the spirit of what Wikipedia is for. I am not a paid editor, and my intention is always to provide objectivity in any edit I make. Thank you again for your time and let me know anything I can do or provide to be helpful. Best, User:Stravensky Stravensky (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I'm going to ask for help, because there's a lot more going on here than you seem aware.
- Maybe this would help you. If I had encountered you in your first year of editing I would have notified you with the following:
Extended content
|
|---|
| Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration. Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles. Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines. If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable. If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page. I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. |
- Maybe you just needed more education early on, but I'm very concerned that your editing tends to be inappropriately promotional and that you're using very poor references. You've edited long enough and have received enough messages from other editors that I'd assume you have some understanding of these problems. You say you have conflicts of interest with 4 articles. Can you please identify them? --Hipal (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hipal Thank you for all your help, I appreciate you taking the time. The four pages I have had affiliation with are Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement, Sanford Greenberg, Janice Bryant Howroyd, and Earth’s Call Fund. The page for Janice Bryant Howroyd already existed but I added more info about her and her companies. The rest of my edits are random things I found and wanted to contribute. I am happy to help fix anything that sounds overly promotional or has bad references, but I believe most of my edits overall have been objectively written and based on reputable sources. Stravensky (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Do you know how to look at an article's edit history and see edit summaries?
- Look over everything I did with GaS Digital Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 31 of 38 references were removed because they appear inappropriate. Of the remaining 7, three are poor. --Hipal (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hipal Understood, yes that makes sense. For their page I was attempting to emulate "Carolla Digital" but I agree those original references were not adequate. I will make sure to not repeat that mistake if I am able to continue editing at some point. I will continue to pause future edits until you are confident I understand and correct these mistakes. Thank you again for all of your help. I really appreciate it. Stravensky (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't want to stop you from editing, but I'd like others to look over what's been happening. @Smartse: might have something to say, as the editor that first brought up the UPE/COI concerns with you. [1] --Hipal (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hipal Understood, yes that makes sense. For their page I was attempting to emulate "Carolla Digital" but I agree those original references were not adequate. I will make sure to not repeat that mistake if I am able to continue editing at some point. I will continue to pause future edits until you are confident I understand and correct these mistakes. Thank you again for all of your help. I really appreciate it. Stravensky (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hipal Thank you for all your help, I appreciate you taking the time. The four pages I have had affiliation with are Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement, Sanford Greenberg, Janice Bryant Howroyd, and Earth’s Call Fund. The page for Janice Bryant Howroyd already existed but I added more info about her and her companies. The rest of my edits are random things I found and wanted to contribute. I am happy to help fix anything that sounds overly promotional or has bad references, but I believe most of my edits overall have been objectively written and based on reputable sources. Stravensky (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe you just needed more education early on, but I'm very concerned that your editing tends to be inappropriately promotional and that you're using very poor references. You've edited long enough and have received enough messages from other editors that I'd assume you have some understanding of these problems. You say you have conflicts of interest with 4 articles. Can you please identify them? --Hipal (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy notice - COIN discussion
[edit]I've gone ahead and started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Stravensky, to have more editors weigh in on the conflict of interest issues. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Hipal Sounds good, thank you. Stravensky (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Earth's Call Fund for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth's Call Fund until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Jfire (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of GaS Digital Network for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GaS Digital Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Ralph Sutton (broadcaster) for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Sutton (broadcaster) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ray until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Jfire (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Stage Front for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stage Front until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Jfire (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Naomi Shah for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Shah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 08:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane Bess until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 09:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Roy Lipski for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Lipski until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 09:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Strike Social
[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 Strike Social, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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 "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 deleted 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. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Michael Huppe for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Huppe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 09:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Poat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 09:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Beverly Camhe for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Camhe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 09:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of JT McCormick for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JT McCormick (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 09:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Strike Social for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strike Social until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
scope_creepTalk 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.scope_creepTalk 15:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Scott Lochmus for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Lochmus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.scope_creepTalk 15:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Alan L. Cohen for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan L. Cohen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.scope_creepTalk 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
When I come back from work today, I intend to take you to WP:ANI for lying and WP:NPA. scope_creepTalk 08:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Scope creep I am filing a notice as well for the same reasons against you. Stravensky (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Ralph Sutton (broadcaster) moved to draftspace
[edit]Thanks for your contributions to Ralph Sutton (broadcaster). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jamiebuba Thanks I will continue to work on this one in draft space. Stravensky (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]
Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:
- Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
- State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
- Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.
Stravensky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Stravensky Apologies I can't reply on the incident report page so I guess I will update here instead... Yes a lot of the articles I have submitted have been deleted, but I could walk through each of them and likely show sourcing that shows notability (Strike Social was approved in 2019 as they were included on a list of fastest growing companies in the US and were featured in big publications, the Ralph Sutton AfD debate had a few KEEP votes because of his hosting a nationally syndicated radio show for nearly two decades, Aaron Ray's partners at Collective Digital Studios were approved articles but not his with more references and accolades, and so forth. Just because the ratio is bad doesn't mean I haven't been submitting worthwhile articles. If I were being paid I would surely have more edits over 6 years. There are articles I wrote that are currently tagged with "close association to the subject" even though I have never met or corresponded with them. Just because I have been accused doesn't make me guilty, and just because I called out scope_creep after he continued to nominate a dozen pages rapid fire prior to reviewing references doesn't call for decision that a good faith editor should be banned out of repercussion for standing up for myself... I was kind at first to the complaints and finally spoke out this week because I thought it would be evidident if anyone actually took a look at my specific edits that I have worked in good faith.
I have made edits and contributed by submitting articles over the past 6 plus years because I enjoy contributing and understand the importance of objectivity. No person or organization has ever paid me to edit a Wikipedia page. One user over the past 6 weeks has recently been determined to nominate articles I have written for deletion and I filed a notice against him today, so I would not at all be surprised to learn that the two events are connected. His nominations did not account for actually reading the references or following guidelines, they were a personal attack against me. On the other hand if you look at any contribution I have made, they have been to add references, fix typos, and submit articles for people and organizations I believe are notable. Also just today one of the nominations he made to delete finally failed, and you can see the motivated attack against my articles despite notability as one small example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lane_Bess#Lane_Bess(talk) 01:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked, not banned. There is a difference. You said on September 24th(above) that " My work is only in social media community management and paid media, so that is all any client of mine has ever paid me for (directly or indirectly)". If you are editing for clients, that is paid editing, you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits(otherwise every paid editor would deny being paid to make edits). As you haven't declared your paid relationship as required by Terms of Use, the reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
- If you are to have any chance of being unblocked, you need to explain what the problem is with making edits such as this one. It's extremely problematic, regardless of whether you are being paid or not. SmartSE (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Stravensky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
On the two edits on the Lane Bess page mentioned here as problematic, I can see that the sourcing doesn’t seem reliable enough, but the content of the links was to back up his position at Trend Micro and the IPO of Palo Alto Networks. Both spots said citation needed, and the citations added do speak to those specific roles so they weren’t randomly added. The issue, I think, is that the Bloomberg link looks like a press release and the CRN site is probably not reputable enough. Mistakenly, I thought more references would be better if they back up what is written on the article. Apologies if this is not correct, but I was trying to confirm his work in the areas where a citation was needed. Previously I shared that I had had contact with a couple of people whose articles I have worked on, but was never paid for any edit. With Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement I consulted with them on their social media for a few months because they are an important cause to help stop school shootings and I think they are important and deserve a page. I have also worked with Janice Bryant Howroyd, Sanford Greenberg and Earth’s Call Fund, but they did not pay or ask me to work on Wikipedia. They seemed overwhelmingly notable and I took it upon myself to contribute to their pages. Earth’s Call Fund seems defunct now and much of the press they had seems gone as well, so I am actually in agreement with that one having been deleted. If I needed or need to add a disclosure on my account beyond saying that on the talk page I would have (or will). After I disclosed this info, the topic was dropped and I was not aware that I was in bad standing. I have nothing to hide and only try to improve with my contributions. The other articles I wrote that have been flagged for having close a connection, like Dusty Slay and Robert Kalich are people I have never met or communicated with -- so despite the suspicions, I have done nothing wrong or sinister in those instances. I listen to Dusty's podcasts — if I found out his birthday or something that isn’t noted in the references then it was not out of being untoward, though I admitted to needing to improve my sourcing going forward. Several of my articles were flagged in this manner out of suspicion, though incorrect. My edits have never been destructive or vandalism or anything but good faith. I try to follow guidelines and improve my skills with each submission. One argument on the notice board points out that if half the articles I have written have been deleted then that must be evidence of poor editing. Most of the deleted articles were deleted in the past 6 weeks by one user and many of them were arguably fine. Some had been approved by other admins in 2018 and 2019 and not flagged with any issues until this year when I thought GaS Digital podcast network deserved a page and submitted it without strong enough references. My point is, maybe 5 or 6 of the 44 articles weren’t notable enough or sourced well enough over 6 years, the rest that have been deleted were arguably good (at least in my opinion). For instance: Rudy Poat was on the team that did the special effects in the movie The Matrix, Ralph Sutton hosted a nationally syndicated radio show, Aaron Ray produced several Ice Cube movies and a broadway show, and so forth. Each of these pages that were deleted had at least some merit as being seen as notable, and none of them were editing for pay. Please look at any of my other submissions or contributions and should be clear they were submitted in good faith. I would say that (of existing ones yet to be deleted) good examples still include Sanford Greenberg, Candi Carter, Stranger's Guide, Scott Lochmus, Daniel Antopolsky, Dusty Slay, Lane Bess, Ankler Media, and Robert Kalich are all helpful contributions correctly submitted for the most part. Sanford Greenberg is the only one of those who has ever paid me. The ones now deleted were largely similar in quality and references, though I admit not all of them were sourced as well and that I will do better at sourcing. To have most of my pages deleted and then my account blocked for UPE (while using the number of deleted articles as proof positive of poor ability and COI) is a nightmare when looking at the truth of the matter. I was just trying to argue for and stand up for the work I have done, and continue to learn and improve. With my account blocked I assume it will be much easier for a particular user to delete the rest of my articles. I haven't done anything knowingly wrong. I simply submit a couple pages a year and make small edits to existing articles to add references or fix typos. The vast majority of which are people and organizations I have no association with at all. I don’t advertise myself or charge as an editor, this is something I have done in my own time and only every few months. I stand by 80% of my the contributions, though as I said I agree a few of them haven't been notable enough over the past 6 years and I shouldn't have submitted those and I should use less references and (only very notable ones). My sourcing needs to be improved, I agree, and I admitted this weeks ago when the GaS Digital page was flagged and all of this trouble started. If a disclaimer needs added about my association with people who I have edited I am happy to do so, even if I don’t ever charge or advertise editing for pay. Stravensky (talk) 10:30 am, 17 November 2023, Friday (1 month, 24 days ago) (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
This does not concisely and clearly address the reasons for the block. Despite protestation to the contrary, user needs to read and heed WP:PAID and WP:COI, which they now understand. Per the voluminous discussion below, unblocking is deferred "three to six months," which would take us to March to June.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Your comments and explanations are a little hard for me to follow. That said, I have some comments and some questions. Articles taken to AfD are not deleted by a user but by an administrator based on consensus of the users participating in the AfD. If you're trying to again accuse Scope creep of doing something wrong as the "user" who brought the AfD, that's already been shown to be complete nonsense, so I urge you to drop it as an argument for unblocking you (see WP:NOTTHEM). You refer to articles you created in 2018-19 that have been deleted recently but had been "approved by other admins". Can you please provide diffs of these article "approvals" (administrators don't normally "approve" articles)? You refer to relationships you have with some of the article subjects as "clients" but say that you don't get any cash out of writing articles about them. What do you mean by "clients"? What exactly is your relationship with some of these people/companies? For the moment, forget the articles that you claim you have no relationship to.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, I will try to clarify the best I can. From March 2022 to September 2022 (7 months) I was paid on behalf of Sanford Greenberg to post on social media for him to promote his book. He is 82 years old and blind, so he is not active online but he has had an inspiring life. I was paid only to post on his social media for him, and after reading his book I took it upon myself to submit an article for him.
Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement I also helped them with social media strategy, but I never offer or advertise Wikipedia work because I don’t want to appear to have any COI or break any guidelines. Since JT Lewis already had a page, I created pages for Scarlett Lewis and the non-profit because there is a lot of press about the great work she does to help end school shootings. Janice Bryant Howroyd has been a client of mine in posting on her social media, that is all that I have ever been paid for and is all that was in my scope of work with her. I did not create her page but I have contributed to it, as it was very short beforehand and there are many reputable articles about her being the first black woman to build and own a billion-dollar company. The only other COI was Earth’s Call Fund, which is already deleted.
The only point in me mentioning old articles was simply to say that user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atlantic306 had reviewed Strike Social, Scott Lochmus and Michael Fitzpatrick pages in 2018 so I assumed they were agreed notable back then by an admin. Similarly the Beverly Camhe article was reviewed in 2018 by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao and the Michael Huppe article was reviewed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seacactus_13 in 2020. My point is not to continue complaining about who nominated to delete these recently, but to point out that they had been previously reviewed by separate admins and that I haven’t tried to lie or edit with any malice.Stravensky (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Only Ser Amantio di Nicolao is an administrator; the other two are not. Articles are not "approved" by anyone at Wikipedia. If you create a draft and go through WP:AFC, a reviewer evaluates the draft and if they think it should be published, they move it to article space, and they notify you of the publication on your Talk page. That publication does not immunize the article against deletion, but if the reviewer is experienced, it tends to mitigate the likelihood of the article being deleted for lack of notability. In addition, I see no indication on this page that any draft you created, assuming you created any (looks to me like you went straight to article space), was reviewed and published by a reviwer.As for the UPE itself, whether you get money or not, if you are doing favors for clients, whether they asked you to or you did it on your own, that is undisclosed paid editing. Payment does not have to be in cash - it can be goodwill or to make it more likely that they will use you for paid work, even if not on Wikipedia. Frankly, all of your responses here only confirm that my block is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Bbb23When asked if I had any relationships to these pages I was forthright, and if I were asked to add a specific disclaimer of some sort I would have. The vast majority of my edits have been on articles I have no relationship with whatsoever, and in the COI listed above by me, the contributions I made on those articles were to add relevant information and reliable sources, not anything shady. I don't see how any of this is anything but in good faith or why me being transparent anytime I was asked questions is grounds for an indefinite ban. Stravensky (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Stravensky. I thought I would post this in the spirit of the early conversations we had, when your were collegiate in your approach. Normally I don't interact with UPE editors. I have very strong views on them, but felt it when you left. I understand that it was difficult to get 13 articles deleted. I had seven deleted across a similar period, years ago. It is very difficult. The article you wrote were very well written and structured, which is another reason I'm here. If wasn't for the WP:PROMO content and the UPE aspect they would have been decent articles. To advise you, a one-time offer, I would wait at least 3-6 months before attempting to come back. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Scope creep Thank you, I will wait a few months as you suggest. I would simply reiterate once more that I haven't ever been paid for editing, and I don't advertise or solicit services to be paid for editing. My understanding (apparently incorrect) was that UPE would be for getting paid for editing, and advertising such a service. When asked about potential COI I was forthright in trying to be transparent. Stravensky (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Stravensky. I thought I would post this in the spirit of the early conversations we had, when your were collegiate in your approach. Normally I don't interact with UPE editors. I have very strong views on them, but felt it when you left. I understand that it was difficult to get 13 articles deleted. I had seven deleted across a similar period, years ago. It is very difficult. The article you wrote were very well written and structured, which is another reason I'm here. If wasn't for the WP:PROMO content and the UPE aspect they would have been decent articles. To advise you, a one-time offer, I would wait at least 3-6 months before attempting to come back. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Stravensky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As suggested, I have waited several months before submitting this unblock request. I have had this account for years and feel I have added value to numerous pages. While I do still think some articles I created were deleted in spite, I do recognize that I should have been more transparent by listing potential COI on my account. I am happy to list that on my account however prefered, and my only intention moving forward is to remain in good standing and be able to contribute to existing pages and improve anything with typos or missing references. I apologize for not being more concise before, but I do want to reiterate that I have never advertised editing as a service and I have never been paid directly for any edits, so while still technical COI that I should have listed, I did not knowingly go against any rules as I did not think of myself as UPE. Stravensky (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Stravensky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Last request timed out so am resubmitting. I look forward to having the account active again for making useful contributions. Stravensky (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you:
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
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.
Stravensky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Blocking administrator: Bbb23 (talk)
Reviewing administrator: Taken together with the prior two unblock requests and intervening discussion with other editors, I am leaning towards accepting this unblock request but would like to check with the blocking admin in case I am missing context regarding edits prior to having been blocked. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Request reason:
After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.
{{unblock reviewed|1=This appeal is partly a response to the last appeal’s decision, as well as to this process I’ve been put through. My initial appeal described my actions and feelings of regret, but it timed out from no response so my most recent appeal was one sentence saying I was resubmitting due to timed out request (which wasn’t sufficient, and the admin apparently didn’t read the previous request.) My last appeal in April said I should have been more transparent about possible COI even though I have never been paid and have never sought payment for editing. Their grounds for denying appeal above was that I didn’t address this (again, presumably, as my most recent appeal simply stated that my appeal timed out). If Wikipedia is supposed to be a democratic process, then my situation is a joke. I created a new page for Gas Digital Network (a podcast network bigger than many that do have Wikipedia pages, and with plenty of notable references) and that creation flagged a series of events that led to a dozen of the pages I wrote being nominated for deletion. Lane Bess was nominated for deletion (even though he was first father-son duo to go into space together — as the admin nominating said “being the first doesn’t qualify notability”). Dusty Slay was nominated for deletion and tagged saying that I had a close personal connection with the subject, though I have never met or spoken with Dusty or anyone associated with him. I am being treated as an enemy while all my edits have been to submit content of quality and fact... The other pages that did get deleted were all in a similar boat. Some excuse was given each time that notability was not achieved or that I was somehow biased. In conversation (and on my talk page) I was immediately transparent about any relationship I had with any page I had created or edited, and admitted my mistake and said I would tag any COI in the future. Instead of seeing this reasonably, I have been labeled as a UPE and dealt with as though I were degrading pages and spreading misinformation on this democratic website. I would posit that in viewing any edit or contribution I have ever made, you would not find any bias, as I use as many reputable references as possible, and have contributed at a small scale to bring value to pages that need it. There are plenty of bad actors that are actually causing damage, and I see it as an insult to be lumped in with them and denied access to resume editing because my apology wasn't up to snuff. It was suggested that I be suspended for 4-5 months, nearly a year ago. I waited to appeal again because I am so disappointed in the process, but rather than logically weigh my contributions, I am being treated as though I were a criminal. The fact that I’ve made x number of contributions, and x percent of the pages I created have now been deleted is now being used against me as though it is proof in itself that I am a bad contributor — even though there is a solid argument to be made that the deleted pages should never have been deleted. I’ve admitted already several times about any COI and understand that rule now and that I should disclose any relationships, but I have never been paid to edit, so dealing with me as a UPE like those who we all despise is just disappointing. Stravensky (talk) 5:25 pm, 21 September 2024, Saturday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed|1=This appeal is partly a response to the last appeal’s decision, as well as to this process I’ve been put through. My initial appeal described my actions and feelings of regret, but it timed out from no response so my most recent appeal was one sentence saying I was resubmitting due to timed out request (which wasn’t sufficient, and the admin apparently didn’t read the previous request.) My last appeal in April said I should have been more transparent about possible COI even though I have never been paid and have never sought payment for editing. Their grounds for denying appeal above was that I didn’t address this (again, presumably, as my most recent appeal simply stated that my appeal timed out). If Wikipedia is supposed to be a democratic process, then my situation is a joke. I created a new page for Gas Digital Network (a podcast network bigger than many that do have Wikipedia pages, and with plenty of notable references) and that creation flagged a series of events that led to a dozen of the pages I wrote being nominated for deletion. Lane Bess was nominated for deletion (even though he was first father-son duo to go into space together — as the admin nominating said “being the first doesn’t qualify notability”). Dusty Slay was nominated for deletion and tagged saying that I had a close personal connection with the subject, though I have never met or spoken with Dusty or anyone associated with him. I am being treated as an enemy while all my edits have been to submit content of quality and fact... The other pages that did get deleted were all in a similar boat. Some excuse was given each time that notability was not achieved or that I was somehow biased. In conversation (and on my talk page) I was immediately transparent about any relationship I had with any page I had created or edited, and admitted my mistake and said I would tag any COI in the future. Instead of seeing this reasonably, I have been labeled as a UPE and dealt with as though I were degrading pages and spreading misinformation on this democratic website. I would posit that in viewing any edit or contribution I have ever made, you would not find any bias, as I use as many reputable references as possible, and have contributed at a small scale to bring value to pages that need it. There are plenty of bad actors that are actually causing damage, and I see it as an insult to be lumped in with them and denied access to resume editing because my apology wasn't up to snuff. It was suggested that I be suspended for 4-5 months, nearly a year ago. I waited to appeal again because I am so disappointed in the process, but rather than logically weigh my contributions, I am being treated as though I were a criminal. The fact that I’ve made x number of contributions, and x percent of the pages I created have now been deleted is now being used against me as though it is proof in itself that I am a bad contributor — even though there is a solid argument to be made that the deleted pages should never have been deleted. I’ve admitted already several times about any COI and understand that rule now and that I should disclose any relationships, but I have never been paid to edit, so dealing with me as a UPE like those who we all despise is just disappointing. Stravensky (talk) 5:25 pm, 21 September 2024, Saturday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}
Friendly advice
[edit](Non-administrator comment) Reading through your unblock requests, I feel like you're not understanding something pretty basic, despite having read the WP:UPE and WP:COI guidelines. You don't have to have a quid pro quo, "I will pay you to create/edit my Wikipedia page" agreement to be in violation of UPE. You don't need to know a subject to violate COI. Creating articles because you think someone deserves one, or only because they were the "first" to do something is not encyclopaedic curation. What if everyone did that?
No one's treating you "like a criminal." It's you who aren't understanding how these policies — policies that apply to everyone — apply here. Unless you demonstrate that you've learned what you've done in contravention of those policies, you won't be unblocked. Editing here is not a right, and thinking of it as "democratic" rather than collaborative is an error.
Perhaps if you agreed to stop creating articles altogether you might be unblocked. There are a zillion other things to do here, if you're genuinely motivated to help improve Wikipedia the project. I've been here for more than 20 years and I've created maybe four articles, but I do help frequently, just in other equally important ways. Matuko (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I can refrain from creating new articles. No problem. Stravensky (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)