Welcome!

Hello, Walton22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Maisaacs, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here. The new username that you choose must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.

To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page here: {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If your username is not in violation of Wikipedia's username policy, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Walton22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

walton22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

current user name evokes my real name and has caused concern re impersonation as the current block deems me a well-known, living person.Walton22 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to follow the instructions above to verify your identity. Once verified, you are welcome to continue to use this username if you wish(though you are also welcome to change it). 331dot (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Walton22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Previous username that resembled "well-known living person" (which was the sole reason for this current block) has now undergone a successful username change in order to completely remove said resemblance, and thus the block should be no longer applicable and consequently be lifted Walton22 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You've changed your username, so I've unblocked you. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has guidelines for conflict of interest editing. If you violate them, your account may be blocked again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello dear Wikipdians. I have a COI connection with page Mark Isaacs. I recently was rightfully chided for some of my editing of that page: nothing untrue or contentious, but too much resume style and lack of citation.

I want to stay away from editing that page for a while, as I have been advised to do, and also to seek guidance before any edits, being particularly conscious of WP:OWN, and staying well within the bounds of permissible COI editing which is not completely forbidden.

If I were to do consider doing something in the future, or asking here for someone to do it, the first thing would be to fix the article's citation for "ARIA Music Awards" which has been recently marked "failed verification". I did not add this material or its citation, another editor did a long time ago. The citation link was basically correct, although once there you had to click on for each of two years involved, so maybe the link was not considered direct enough, hence "failed". Once at the right year, where the winners are shown, you have to click again to show the nominees (the article's subject was only nominated). That last click does not produce a new URL so it is not possible to link all the way to the destination: someone following the citation will have to do another click at the end. Can the citation be satisfactory under these conditions? The destination website should be fine to cite (The ARIA Awards are the Australian equivalent of Grammy Awards)

If this citation is fixed, presumably the template "refimproveblp" could be removed? I understand Discographies and Filmographies don't need inline citations.

Question: can I fix the citation and remove the template after some much-needed post-probationary time away from the article, or might someone else do it from my suggestion here? If I can do it, please advise re the technicalities of the citation linking as above.

I hope at the very least that my asking here, as I have, is the right thing to do. Walton22 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Walton22: Following links should get a grip on your problem: WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Please also disclose COI on article's talkpage with {{connected contributor}} and {{UserboxCOI}} on your userpage. Sincerely, A09 (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A09: Thank you. I will take note of all you said when/if I make that edit down the track, which if it happens will be when I feel the courage and decompression to attempt. Looking at the way the article will be when that is done, would my licence extend to then removing the "refimproveblp" template, since it would have resolved the issue referred? Walton22 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per BLP policy everything must be properly sourced, so there is no hard limit on the number of sources. But in case you cannot find a proper source backing your claim, it's best to remove it. In my opinion, try filling in references and then make a note about removing refimproveblp notice (or even coming to IRC channel). But if you plan to add multiple good sources, I don't see any problems removing it by yourself. A09 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A09: Thank you again. I'll try my hand at this initial foray at some point in the future when I feel ready to come back to try out being a Wikipedian. I already feel a warmer atmosphere is created by virtue of my working to understand the rules here, rather than as previously veering to WP:OWN and getting some deserved kicks. Walton22 (talk)

Feel free here, I can say at least 90% of us are trying to assume good faith. A09 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A09 I may have brushed against one or two of the <10%; there was a call for a topic ban for me which doesn't seem to have eventuated and seemed a bit hasty, as not allowing me to redeem myself. And I have been swarmed by LTA vandals here on the talk page. But, all in all, nothing a break won't fix, with the added security of a game plan for when I return, thanks to you. Walton22 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A09: I have added the two COI templates you requested. Could you please check my edits to the Mark Isaacs article today. I have taken away unsourced material, even though I know it to be true via COI connection. Also improved article format (some scant material didn't deserve its own sub-heading). I hope these edits are uncontroversial and helpful. I will still take a pause before adding anything to this article. Walton22 (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Walton, sorry for my late reply. I have placed {{User COI}} on your user page, but added content seems fine now except his birthday (which is not mentioned in reference #1, but must be backed up by sources per WP:BLP). I agree with removing the template. Sincereley, A09 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A09Sorry that in my ignorance I put the COI template on my user talk page rather than user page. Thanks for moving it. I have added a citation for birth date & place in COI article. Thank you for your guidance. Walton22 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A09 I corrected the spelling of surname for affected article in the new COI template you made. There is a different WP BLP article with that spelling, so it did not create an obvious broken link, but pointed to the wrong article of course.Walton22 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for typo, but will also answer to question below. You may just WP:STARTOVER and not edit Mark Isaacs anymore or just leave it as is. No one is likely to salk you beacuse of a noticeboard post, that will get archived shortly. Decision is yours, but removing notice at WP:COIN would be wrong (as some may see it as an act of hiding your COI). A09 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take your advice. I would have liked to just declare close connection COI without revealing my actual identity ideally, which is clearly permissible. I outed myself because of the WP:IMPERSONATE question behind the block. But trying to change the record now could seem nefarious. Not my intention at all, but justice must be seen to be done as well! Yes, it will be archived soon. Of course nothing on Wikipedia is lost, but if some sleuth wants to unearth the trail in the future, go for it :) Walton22 (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A09 In view of WP:Conflict of interest which says "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes." am I in a position to request comments revealing identity at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mark_Isaacs be deleted permanently? Initially, while under WP:IMPERSONATE block, I chose to reveal identity in response, but this does not now hold, and I wish to merely declare a COI connection and correct the "outing" even though I caused it. If applicable, please permanently delete this comment too.

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Gordonvale, Queensland because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwUThank you. I've tried another different edit now. Fail to see why removed citations to links to newspaper articles supporting information in article are "inappropriate"? Walton22 (talk) 04:33, 11

@A09 All my COI edits to connected page Mark Isaacs since block lift have been removing previous unsourced COI edits of mine.

I am diffident to add actual new material yet, even if uncontroversial and sourced, so I have made my first "edit request" on the article talk page to suggest adding just a single sentence paraphrasing the relevant reference source, and changing the inappropriate heading level of the section. I see there is quite a queue for these requests...

In the meantime: would I be safe to directly add further simple tables to currently incomplete Mark Isaacs#Awards_and_nominations in the same style as current table item, including references of course, in order to make it more comprehensive? Would this be uncontroversial for COI editing, as it won't involve any natural language, just a "list" in table form?

Thank you for your kind interest and advice. Walton22 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, as per WP:COI: you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; so I would make anotice and then wait. Fixing small typos, removing vandalism etc. is allowed, but I wouldn't make any bigger edits to page about subject, which I am connected with. Article is connected to some WikiProjects, so you may ask on noticeboards of its WikiProject. And yes, a list can be just as controversial as plain text. A09 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @A09, I appreciate your advice, and will follow it. Walton22 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message to 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

Hello 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk),

Apologies for my reply on your talk page which you reverted here. I replied rather quickly and hadn't grasped that you had asked me in your previous edit not to reply there, which should be, and is, respected.

If I have any say in the matter, I don't wish us to speak at ANI as you suggested.

The one thing I would like to ask you to address here (which was the main thing in my reverted reply) is a very plain error of fact about one of my moves on WP which still appears on your talk page. I imagine this was inadvertent and accidental, and as such that you would wish to correct it:

There was also the recent unsourced inclusion of a non notable family member at Gordonvale, Queensland

The edit you refer to was not "recent" at all, far from it; it was in 2010, please have a look. I think if it was indeed "recent" it would have been extremely egregious on my part given what I have learned this year, so the implications of this factual error which you have (I think, accidentally) promulgated I do take very seriously.

Also, I did reveal my real identity some weeks ago as a kneejerk and inadvertent response to counter a (non-factual) temporary block for WP:IMPERSONATE but I would like to be referred to at all times by my WP user name, not by "Mr ____" as you have done on your talk page. All the templates are in place declaring the COI personal connection, and I believe that is enough. I have actually been considering requesting a RevDel in this matter.

Thank you in advance for correcting the record. Walton22 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (may I call you "2601"?), I have fixed the two edits of mine that had some issues as you pointed out, although your edit summary at [1] was not particularly enlightening. By the way, did you see my message above? WP:AGF Walton22 (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please stop

Please stop editing on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Another self-report to get consensus on boundaries of COI. You are nitpick-editing your previous comments. For everyone who has watchlisted that page (me included, but not for your thread) every time you edit there it sends out a ping. 47 times! Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The thread is dead and you've still made 10 more edits, so please just stop already. Grorp (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grorp (talk). I'm very, very sorry. I didn't realise at all that these little edits sent pings (although it makes sense now). Of course they're very minor changes. I tend to revise anything I do to try and make it as clean as I think it can be (i.e. nitpick). I thought I was doing this privately! How irritating. Walton22 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]