Jump to content

User talk:Wiki Page Polisher

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

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello Wiki Page Polisher! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

January 2021

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Devin White has been reverted.
Your edit here to Devin White was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/GetLive40/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:Coach Duggs Super Size Scandal.jpeg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Coach Duggs Super Size Scandal.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Coach Duggs.jpeg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coach Duggs.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Coach Duggs Super Size Scandal.jpeg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coach Duggs Super Size Scandal.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Duggs moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Coach Duggs, 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💕 10:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Coach Duggs Super Size Scandal.jpeg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coach Duggs Super Size Scandal.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Desi-Rae Young.jpeg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Desi-Rae Young.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://unlvrebels.com/sports/womens-basketball/roster/desi-rae-young/14560. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albanil

[edit]

Hi! Proposed deletion of Omar Albanil

Notice

The article Omar Albanil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable boxer or businessman

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.-note that I am 99.99% of the time against deletions.

Thanks and God bless! Antonio not an Albanil neither a pintor or a carpintero Martin (Loser's talk) 11:03, August 23, 2021 (UTC)

Have you been paid for other edits you have made (except Desi-Rae Young)?

[edit]

If so, please describe. MER-C 11:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young, Emunah La-Paz, and this week, Jayde Riviere (just disclosed this one now on that talk page, had forgotten) Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make the relevant disclosures slightly more obvious on your user page. I acknowledge that the declaration is made, but the formal format is preferred FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Just added the full template (I believe I used the right template and added it the proper way). Thanks!Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Desi-Rae Young (October 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Appears not to meet WP:NBASKETBALL.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Wiki Page Polisher! 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! Greenman (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Asopa Films (November 11)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Asopa Films has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Asopa Films. Thanks! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thank you for the feedback and advice. I saw your comments on Draft:Asopa Films and in response on Nomadicghumakkad's talk page. I believe that I have remedied the Citekill/Bombard issue on the Asopa Films draft. While I'm still relatively new to paid editing, I've spent more time (days and days in total) pouring through Wikipedia standards and policies in doing my due diligence to avoid these exact types of issues with my articles - I just don't think I'd seen, or forgot it if I did d/t information overload perhaps, the Citekill/Bombard standards. I make a point and conscious effort to ensure an objective, matter-of-fact tone in my work (Wikipedia got me through high school and college once upon a time, so I have no interest nor intention of tarnishing its encyclopedic value), and I still feel that the Asopa Films article is in a neutral tone, but I am going to go back through it again here shortly to tweak and revise as necessary to address the concerns you laid out and ensure there's no question of neutrality. Thank you again for your feedback! Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not just mine and the declining reviewer. You have work to do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Asopa Films has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Asopa Films. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Asopa Films has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Asopa Films. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Asopa Films Inc. Logo.jpeg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Asopa Films Inc. Logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Do not make accusations or cast aspersions, please. You have doubled down on them now. It is not only an unpleasant behaviour, it is unwarranted FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

November 2021

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked for one week from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Cullen328, I am requesting that you please unblock me. I have drafted a detailed account of the Wikipedia violations by users Justlettersandnumbers and Timtrent that I was in the process of posting to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page relevant to this discussion for the other third-party users' consideration on the matter when apparently I was blocked and now cannot respond to these unwarranted allegations against me. I hate to cry "victim", but if anything I am the aggrieved in this situation and have detailed the evidence of these users' actions in support of my position. This appears to be a case of the aggressor beating the non-aggressor to the punch and asserting one-sided allegations lacking even remotely close to complete context and crying victim themselves, in order to achieve this exact result - punitive action being levied against the non-aggressor to suppress my voice before I can simply state the full facts of the situation. Further, I did not personally attack nor harass anyone and would also actually like to know what this block is even specifically based on. I made literally two posts on a nomination for deletion discussion board raising just some of my concerns about these two users' conduct and made no threats nor any other posts beyond. I would appreciate some basic due process here to be heard. I have no interest in being abusive. I simply want to not be persecuted by these two users who are targeting my articles and blanket removing all of my content in violation of Wikipedia's policies. While my work may not be perfect, any discrepancies of mine are at most mistakes and related to some inexperience. These users, on the other hand, are engaged in knowing and intentional violations of Wikipedia policies in hounding. Again, my goal is simply to be left alone and my work criticized and revised on an equal standard as non-paid contributors. Thank you. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, read the guide to appealing blocks. Then, submit a properly formatted unblock request, following the instructions above precisely. Another administrator will then consider your appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Asopa Films has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Asopa Films. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting that I be unblocked because I was unduly blocked for a number of reasons. User:Cullen328 blocked me for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy." This block resulted from JUST TWO posts I made on an article for deletion discussion board (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maddy_Dychtwald), in which I raised concerns regarding potentially policy violative conduct of two users - an admin/VRT member, User:Justlettersandnumbers, and seasoned AfC reviewer, Timtrent - regarding their harassing and hounding of me simply because I am a paid contributor. For example, they, almost simultaneously (in a matter of 70 minutes) and with an appearance of collaboration, deleted and reverted ALL, without exception, of my contributions to Maddy Dychtwald in one single action (not individual revisions, reversions, or deletions) simply because I was a paid contributor without regard to the merit of the content removed, with Justlettersandnumbers simply claiming (in what I can only conclude to be bad faith in order to have a reason to remove paid content) “Rv paid editor contributions, we can’t allow WP:deceptive advertising anywhere in the project," for my contributions that could not reasonably be considered close to deceptive advertising (while I'll admit I probably could've done better on the neutral tone in SOME parts of the article). But nonetheless, a blanket removal of my contributions. They then promptly added a "Notability" tag now that they had removed all of the facts and references supporting notability (a very brief Google search can clearly demonstrate notability for this person, it's not even a borderline case). Then, promptly after that, Timtrent nominated the article for deletion. Again, all of this in 70 minutes, with other comments and claims of "puffery" for simply stating the person made a Forbes' list - just clearly demonstrated these two users' motive and objective. About a week later, another user later came back (likely seeing these abnormalities in their conduct) and restored the article to its prior pre-deletion nomination version (i.e. with my contributions), which User:Justlettersandnumbers promptly reverted back to the barebones version without my contributions. Because of this ANOTHER user (Theleekycauldron) had to come in a revert Justlettersandnumbers reversion back to the more complete version with my edits - that user specifically told Justlettersandnumbers / stated in his/her reversion “Sorry, but you can’t revert all contributions to an article just because they’re from a paid contributor – If you have specific sections you’d like to remove because they are non-neutral or puffery (and, as someone with experience at this, I can say that there are many), you should WP:PRESERVE the rest.” My noticing of this Maddy Dychtwald conduct led me to discover shortly thereafter that the combination of these two users, potentially also involving User:Theroadislong, clearly went down my list of paid contribution disclosures on my talk page, as well as my talk page list of unpaid contributions, and began HOUNDING and VANDALIZING a number of those articles as well ALL IN THE SAME FIVE (5) HOUR PERIOD OF TIME ON 11/11/21. For context, it appears that these users became aware that I was a paid contributor on some articles based on my submission of the Asopa Films draft for AfC review on 11/11 (same day the above actions were taken by the users). Users Timtrent and Theroadislong made a number of critical comments on this draft - some certainly valid, but several demonstrating an excessive heightened standard of "criticism" (which can only be explained as due to my status as a paid contributor). For instance, Theroadislong asserted that my contributions to this article about a film production company were "entirely promotional (paid)", specifically citing to my use of "Oscar-awarded filmmaker" in reference to a long-deceased individual who is completely unrelated to Asopa Films or any of its constituents (I only stated that the Asopa founder watched that filmmaker's movies as a child), "four upcoming projects" (I am still utterly baffled by this and don't even know how that could remotely be considered non-neutral or promotional), referring to company's films and founder as "critically-acclaimed, award-winning" (which both the films and founder objectively were, especially as to "award-winning", as factually indicated and referenced throughout the article), and "cumulatively earned nearly 100 awards [for the company's films]" (which again, it's a positive fact, but it's still an objective fact that's very relevant and standard to include in encyclopedic prose about a film production company and relates to its notability). For instance, on 11/11, User:Justlettersandnumbers went to the Jayde Riviere article (disclosed as paid contribution on my talk page) and restored a previous version of the article, swiftly and completely reverting ALL OF MY CONTRIBUTIONS without any individual, specific, nor valid explanation or basis - simply stating the SAME EXACT M.O. claim of “Rv paid editor contributions, we can’t allow WP: deceptive advertising anywhere in the project." For clarity, Riviere is an Olympic soccer player. My work on this article (which I encourage you to review) is 100% irrefutably and completely objective, neutrally-toned, and sufficiently referenced. Unlike Maddy Dychtwald, where I can understand some criticism (but still not anything close to blank deletion), my Jayde Riviere contributions are not even worthy of any criticism, let alone this blanket deletion. Further, again on the night of 11/11, Justlettersandnumbers also went to the Charley Hughlett article for which I added UNPAID contributions (as I have done for a number of football players and other athletes)(I list this as Unpaid on my Talk page). Justlettersandnumbers AGAIN performed their M.O. move of deleting all of my contributions in one swoop and act without explanation beyond “Rv paid editor contributions, we can’t allow WP:deceptive advertising anywhere in the project, whether disclosed or not." SO THIS USER HAS NOT ONLY HOUNDED AND VANDALIZED MY CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT NOW HAS ALSO PERSONALLY ATTACKED ME BY MAKING THE UNFOUNDED AND BASELESS ACCUSATION THAT I MADE UNPAID CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT REPORTING THEM AND FURTHER ALLEGING WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION OR BASIS THAT I ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING IN MY CONTRIBUTIONS TO AN ARTICLE THAT I WAS NOT PAID ON NOR HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARTICLE SUBJECT! So based on these actions by these users - which pretty objectively demonstrates a pattern of harassment, hounding, and vandalism as well as edit warring and abuse of administrator and Twinkle privileges - I raised some of these issues on the aforementioned Article for Deletion discussion board, which, I would presume in part due to ego and also not appreciating getting called out on their transgressions and questioning their authority, resulted in User:Justlettersandnumbers promptly going to the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) to make a bias-laden post attempting to turn the situation around on me, despite me being the one to raise concerns about them first, and solicit the input (i.e. discipline against me) of other users. Once I saw this post on the noticeboard, I began to author a rebuttal, much of which is now included herein, to respond to Justlettersandnumbers accusations and efforts to "beat me to the punch" and use his/her clout as a more senior editor and administrator to have me blackballed, which is obviously what happened without me ever even being able to post my response, hence I am here talking to you. So regarding specific reasoning as to why my "blocking" was unwarranted from the start as neither of my TWO comments constituted anything close to Harassment or Personal Attacks... First, Wikipedia:Harassment defines "Harassment" in the first sentence as "a PATTERN of REPEATED OFFENSIVE behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person..." So for one, I made two posts - that cannot reasonably be characterized as a pattern of anything - and even so, my comments can only be considered "offensive" to the extent that they offended the egos and authority complexes of these users. I did not engage in any name-calling, make any threats, nor otherwise insult or comment on the other users on a personal level. I only stated that I was compiling evidence to raise these claims of hounding and harassment for these users' "abuse of their Wikipedia privileges," which I stated that I suspected to have been done in "bad faith" and exemplifying a motive and objective to remove paid contributions outright by using a intentionally-implemented workaround allegation (deceptive advertising - part of the bad faith) since they could not delete all this content simply because it was paid. I opined that this conduct to be "quite disgraceful" given these individuals senior and powerful status on Wikipedia and that this "persecutory with hunt is frankly repulsive, a waste of everyone's time and energy, and quite unfortunate." That is the truth as to both its content and to the matter of what I said to trigger this block. That is literally all that I did. None of this rises close the level of personal attacks - nothing I commented was name-calling, abusive, related to race, sex, etc., threatening any legal, violent, expose privacy or any other off-platform action. This block is simply punitively natured with likely suppressive intent as well- NOT PREVENTATIVE in the slightest sense as REQUIRED by Wikipedia's blocking policy. The fact that my two comments, without an opportunity to even retort, resulted in the blocking admin blocking me honestly makes me question the integrity of that user as well, but I'll leave that to you. As I hope you have been able to deduce from this complete account of the relevant events, the initiative and action by these users, namely Justlettersandnumbers, to have me blocked is pretty clearly a punitive response, wielding their power on the platform, to retaliate against me for calling into question their conduct in the same manner that they have badgered and insulted me as a paid editor (with repeated quips of "a paid editor should know X or Y" in a looking-down-upon, insulting tone). Except the difference between me and them is that I didn't and don't engage in edit warring or other vandalistic conduct to remove their contributions just because I don't like what they stand for (and believe me I am not a fan of bullies, but especially not of hiding behind the anonymity of a computer - and nonetheless, I still don't stoop to that level). I am not sure what the appropriate remedy or punishment is for these other users. I do not have an opinion on punitive action to be adjudicated toward them beyond simply having them leave me alone and/or treat me the same as they'd treat an unpaid contributor. I do not and have never sought out nor instigated conflict of any kind on this platform. I do not engage in belittling others for my own power trip or other motives as it is clear other users do. All I want is for this persecutory, targeted witch hunt of me to stop and not continue in the future. I am simply an out-of-work attorney, laid off during the pandemic, trying to make a modest living for my family in the most difficult times of my life. I understand that my work is not necessarily perfect, but I vet every client/article subject for notability and references before ever taking on a project. I make a good faith conscious effort to maintain a non-promotional tone and all of my article edits are thoroughly sourced. I am open to constructive revisions and feedback on my work, but, like anyone, I resent being a persecuted victim in the midst of a seemingly self-involved/-important vigilante crusade, in which these persecuting users are substituting their own beliefs and opinions on paid editing and the knowledge base of paid editors in place of the actual Wikipedia policies on the very matters for which they crusade. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing back from you soon and to answer any questions or concerns that you may have, as well as to solicit your advice on the most effective measures for me to pursue to ensure that my contributions are not simply wiped off the platform in their entirety simply out of profiling and prejudice due to my status as a paid editor. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When blocked for personal attacks, a wall of text doubling down on the personal attacks will not persuade anyone. You have not at all addressed the reason for your block, and therefore if unblocked the unacceptable behavior can be expected to continue. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What else would you like me to address as to the reason for the block? I genuinely do not know how I could’ve been more honest or specific. And you’re apparently using my detail so you have as much information as possible on the circumstances to adjudicate the situation against me as well? I truly do not understand this. Me simply calling out someone else’s violations is “unacceptable behavior”, but those original violations by the other users are not? I am not at all a disruptive person or user, as can easily be verified by reference through my readily available history on the platform. This is legitimately jaw-dropping.Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiki Page Polisher - You state, in BLOCK CAPITALS, that certain users have been vandalizing. Those users are not vandals and are not intentionally harming Wikipedia,so that your allegation of vandalism is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon what they did was objectively vandalism. As I explained and cited in detail. Look at Wikipedia's definition of vandalism juxtaposed with what they did. It's objective. But I get what's going on here, it's a mob mentality, protect those with status deal. Such is the state of the world these days. So it is what it is, unfortunately. So I'll eat the persecutory fallout. Have an absolutely delightful day. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Omar Albanil for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Omar Albanil 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/Omar Albanil 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.

Slywriter (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in mainspace

[edit]

I have reverted your edits to Jayde Riviere‎. You are a paid editor, and paid editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. You are permitted to propose improvements using {{request edit}} on the talk-page. You are expected to disclose your paid status any and every time you make any edit relating to the topic. You may not WP:PROMOTE anything or anybody in Wikipedia – neutrality is one of the five pillars of this project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report

[edit]

I removed your report of Justlettersandnumbers over at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. None of the edits or actions by Justlettersandnumbers constitute vandalism. Please do not re-add the report. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Coach Duggs

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Wiki Page Polisher. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Coach Duggs, 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) 14:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Asopa Films (January 13)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Once again, IMBd is not a reliable source. Either source the information elsewhere or remove it.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Rusalkii (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rusalkii Prior to resubmission, I substantially revised and trimmed this draft, including the removal of all references to IMDb and any information in the draft that could only be sourced to IMDb. After reading your comment, I realize that I did miss References #7 & #8 used for one sentence each at the bottom of "Company History," but the information (i.e., #7 - list of the article's subject, Asopa Films', films and Asopa Films' founder's involvement in those films; #8 - the cumulative amount of the article subject, Asopa Films', awards and nominations, as individually mentioned and referenced to other non-IMDb reliable sources subsequently in the article) to which those two sources are attributed in those two sentences are thoroughly established elsewhere throughout this draft from a variety of sources. I intentionally left the IMDb citations in the filmography simply for ease of reader reference for further information and since the information in the filmography is also thoroughly established and not. WP:when to cite and WP:likely to be challenged do not require any of these citations though since the information cited to IMDb is (1) established and cited by different sources elsewhere in the article, and (2) lists simply stating the films and the executive personnel involved in those films are not reasonably disputable. So I don't think I'm understanding the reason for rejection. Are these citations to IMDb the sole reason this draft was rejected? Could you please elaborate? Thank you. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should remove all of the IMBd references; the links in the external links section should be enough for reference. I have not evaluated all of the other sources, since there's a lot of them, but just eyeballing it I'm not seeing a lot of independent coverage of the company, as opposed to its individual films. My suggestions are to find the WP:THREE best independent sources that talk about the company at length, and leave links to them in a comment at the top before you resubmit next. This will help the next reviewer sort through the sourcing and probably get you a faster review. Also, the tone is still somewhat promotional, though it's much better than the previous drafts. Rusalkii (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Asopa Films (April 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Justlettersandnumbers was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The three "best" refs mentioned are simply three press-releases put out by the company to promote its interests – the same reason it has hired a paid editor here. Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources, not press-releases or other publicity materials such as the company's own website. Please do not submit this again without a good number of solid, in-depth, independent references (see WP:NCORP for how to evaluate sources).
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Asopa Films

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Wiki Page Polisher. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Asopa Films, 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) 23:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Asopa Films

[edit]

Hello, Wiki Page Polisher. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Asopa Films".

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. When 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! 22:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_Page_Polisher&oldid=1151577619"