User talk:Drm310/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Speedy deletion declined: User:Jhawkins57

Hello Drm310. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jhawkins57, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: seems like it's exactly what wikipedia is for. Almost certainly CoI, but that's not a U5 reason. . Thank you. Ged UK 12:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Asking for Updates

Hi Drm310,

Please any updates about the article, you ve told me that you will see what you can do about it to get published!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelmounimbfs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abdelmounimbfs: Here is my evaluation of your sources in Draft:Waystocap:

Menabytes - possibly acceptable, but only if it is a truly independent source and WaystoCap did not pay to be featured. I would ask editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a more in-depth evaluation.
Disrupt Africa - same at Menabytes.
Ycombinator is a primary source close to the subject, and the text is promotional and looks as if it was written by someone from WaystoCap. I don't think this is an acceptable source.
The TechCrunch article looks good to me, but same advice as Menabytes and Disrupt Africa.
Wamda is just restating the information from the TechCrunch article. You don't need it, and you don't need to repeat the statement about the money it raised in the beginning of your Funding section. It's already been stated in the History section.
Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. Don't use it as a reference.

Per WP:ORGIND: "Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility."

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

APLgo

Ha, my block and speedy are timestamped at the same minute as your UAA report. Fine teamwork! Thank you for catching it! Bishonen | tålk 19:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC).

Re Ldillonschalk

DRM310 Thank you for the recent direction. Very helpful. Laurie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldillonschalk (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Advertisements on user pages

Good catch with this user page. I reverted it back to a useful version, which includes what passes as his policy/guideline-required notice of a conflict of interest in a particular topic. I put a note on his user page which should discourage him from trying to restore the inappropriate text. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Davidwr. I encounter these types of edits frequently when I go over the recent changes list with these filters [1]. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Gentle Fire

Hi Drm310

thank you for flagging up your concerns. This article (Gentle Fire) has indeed been written collaboratively by the surviving members of the group, also making use of two articles in Leonardo Music Journal Volume 11, which were accounts of a) the history of the group (by Hugh Davies, deceased), and b) a history of my decades in the experimental and free improvisation corner of the music world, written by myself(Stuart Jones - Wawamoz). These articles were written at the behest of the editor in chief, Nicholas Collins. Ironically enough, given that I/we seem to have broken Wikipedia's rules, he has since exhorted me to 'put some of that stuff into Wikipedia'... I have acted as the collator, as the only member of the group who is a Wikipedia user. I have tried to be transparent as to identities of those involved. I/we have worked hard to maintain an objective position throughout and if we have failed to do so at any point, I would invite specific criticism and advice in order to improve both articles you have taken exception to. Gentle Fire Group (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gentle Fire Group: Hello Stuart. Unfortunately there are a few things that I must inform you about.

You seem to be operating two accounts simultaneously: Gentle Fire Group and Wawamoz. This is not permitted generally, and is referred to here as sockpuppetry. The rule is "one editor, one account". I must ask that you choose to use one of the accounts, and abandon the other permanently.

Account names are are subject to the username policy. Normally we don't allow account names to be named after a group or organization, although in your case I don't think it's exactly cut and dried. Since this group appears to be defunct, I have posed a question to other experienced editors as to whether the policy applies in this case. Regardless, it still might imply that other people have access, which is also not permitted.

Wikipedia also does not include topics on everything that exists. It is selective about the topics it includes, and calls this concept "notability". Topics are deemed notable if they have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic itself. Unfortunately, with the one source you have provided, you have not shown that this group is sufficiently notable for inclusion.

We also highly discourage editors from writing about topics where they have a personal or professional connection - a conflict of interest. It's not prohibited outright, but it is very difficult for someone involved with a topic to write from the required neutral point of view. Wikipedia readers expect factual, dispassionate articles written independently of their subjects. We don't have much interest in what a person, organization, thing, etc. wishes to say about itself, but rather what unconnected third parties have chosen to publish about it.

I'm sorry this message couldn't be more favourable. If you can provide additional evidence of coverage from third-party sources, then your draft could be re-evaluated in the future. Best of luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:SMG DUNES

Hello there, Drm310. Can you please delete Draft:SMG DUNES due to violations to policy? I nominated it for speedy deletion based on critera G11. Thank you, and stay safe. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa, I've declined the G11 because it was not unsalvageably promotional. Also, Drm is not an admin, so he doesn't have the technical right to delete pages. Java Hurricane 01:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)rajput 2

Extended discussion between the two users.

@JavaHurricane: My bad. Sorry Drm310 for bothering you. Java, please see User talk:Harshrajput 201818 for an example of an user writing a draft about himself, whose draft got deleted several times because Wikipedia is not about writing autobiographies about yourself. In this case, this user is promoting himself - so I am redirecting the draft to his user sandbox. His sandbox is literally the same thing as the draft.~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa, simply because something is an autobio doesn't make it a G11: the page has to be blatant unsalvageable promotion or advertising for G11 to apply, and the page, while certainly not WP:NPOV, is not unsalvageable promotion. Most autobiographies are usually promotional enough for removal per G11, but this one is not that promotional. An {{npov}}} tag should be enough in this case. Remember that deletion is a last resort of sorts. Java Hurricane 02:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: Please reread my comment above. I said I have redirected to his sandbox, since the sandbox has the same info as the draft. Plus, Deb agrees with me that no autobiography writing is allowed, and that's why he deleted the draft. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa, I think you misunderstood the policy. Autobiography writing is discouraged, not forbidden. The reason it is discouraged is WP:COI. I did read about the redirection: I only explained why G11 won't apply. I've myself had G11s declined for autobiographies where the tone is not unsalvageably promotional. Java Hurricane 02:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: OK, since you are the more experienced user, I'm going with what you are saying. So are you saying that it was wrong for Deb to delete the draft? He could have just declined the G11 and moved it to the user page? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Destroyeraa, I don't know how promotional that deleted page was, so I can not tell for sure. Java Hurricane 02:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

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 Drm310,

I just want to say a big thank you for notifying me of the error "RaeRachy"article page which you triggered it's delete. To be honest with you,I am totally new to Wikipedia, I underwent a training Basic Wikipedia Training as part of ‘Decolonize the Internet’ project supported by the Goethe-Institut this week and I have been so eager to create a worthy content/article on Wikipedia; I never knew that the mistake came from the article heading. Originally the article is about "Sifax Group". I had initially created the article on my Sandbox and shown some of my tutors to criticise it which they did. I think the fault came from the heading. I made a big mistake.

Thank you for the notification. It will be a pleasure to learn a lot from you and other talented editors of think his great community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaeRachy (talk • contribs)

@RaeRachy: You're welcome. Wikipedia is a big place with a lot of rules, so it's easy for a new editor to make a few mistakes when they're starting out. Have you tried the Wikipedia Adventure? It's a fun, interactive exercise designed to help new editors learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. The Introduction to Wikipedia is also a good place to learn. You can also find a community of editors willing to help at the Wikipedia Teahouse, which is a message forum for newcomers to ask questions to experienced Wikipedia editors.

One last thing. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Best of luck with your future edits, and welcome aboard! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please review my user page

Good afternoon Drm310. Could you please review my user page and tell me if this meets Wikipedia standards? I have noted the comments you previously sent me and I hope I have met Wikipedia's expectations. Best wishes, Matthieu — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthieuPetrigh (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@MatthieuPetrigh: I have reviewed the changes and I am satisfied that this now complies with Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. Thank you for your revisions.

One other thing: when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Accident / Sorry!

(Vandalism warning from TheSecretImpostor self-reverted)

@TheSecretImpostor: Kindly provide proof of this disruptive editing you claim that I am guilty of. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drm310:! Sorry for that, it was an accident and was meant for a different IP user, I'll delete it! Signed (TheSecretImpostor)

Userpage/sandbox

Hello, The draft I have in my sandbox is for a class assignment, I am not really going to edit the page. Can you please undelete the work I took and the amount of time I put in. Thank you and this assignment is for a grade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agonz1057 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Agonz1057: Before I reply, please post new discussion topics at the bottom of the talk page. It keeps the flow of messages in the correct chronological order.

My deletion notification was for your userpage (User:Agonz1057); your userpage is not your user sandbox (User:Agonz1057/sandbox). They are separate and distinct from one another, and they have different purposes.

Your userpage is a place for you to write a small amount of personal information, keeping within the userpage guidelines. Your user sandbox is a place to draft future articles or practice editing; this is where your content should have been put.

I am not an administrator, and I have no privileges to restore deleted content. You can request that the deleted material be undeleted and restored to your user sandbox here: WP:REFUND.

Finally, please sign your posts when you leave a comment on a talk page. This is necessary to know who said what and when. An automated script signed your last post for you, but please remember to do it yourself in the future. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kris Marsh

Hello, Drm310. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kris Marsh".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kumarasamy Aravinth

Hi, our user page was speedy deleted due to these reasons: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host

As this is our first time creating a Wiki page, may I know which sections were related to those reasons? We can then edit accordingly and submit again for review. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarasamy Aravinth (talk • contribs)

@Kumarasamy Aravinth: Since your user page was already deleted and I do not remember its contents, I assume that it was the same as the content that you currently have in your user sandbox (User:Kumarasamy Aravinth/sandbox).

Your user page is not an article. A user page is meant to be a brief biography of you and your interests as they relate to editing Wikipedia. Your content was an expansive biography and it looks like you were trying to write an article. Please also be aware that Wikipedia discourages people from writing articles about themselves, due to the difficulty in judging your own notability and writing from the required neutral point of view.

I must also ask what you mean when you say "our" and "we". How many people have access to your account? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Template message

Does your message at User_talk:Mohammed_Shadman_Kabir happen to be a template? It's well written and would be a good help. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: Thanks! It's not a template per se (since I'm lazy) but a prefabricated response. I have it here: User:Drm310/Notyou.

I can't take all the credit for it, however. The late admin JohnCD was the original author, and I made a few changes to it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Another userful one I adapted is here: User:Drm310/Userpage. It was based off an original message by Anna Frodesiak (User:Anna Frodesiak/Cuw-promo-username-block. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Review Article

Dear Drm310,

Kindly assist in reviewing my recently published article about Prestariang Berhad for a neutral and objective POV.

Appreciate your help.

Cheers.

-Saiful-

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saifulamir1993 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saifulamir1993: I will, when I have time. In the meantime, you must review and comply with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy, as you appear to be employed by the company you're writing about. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am an employee of the company, Drm310. However, the writing was based on facts/publicly available information. Will check out the paid editing disclosure policy and declare accordingly.

Stay safe my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saifulamir1993 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What's your problem?

Whats Dwotxmunchi (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

My problem is when people think that Wikipedia is a social media platform, or a space to tell the world about themselves; it is not. It is for objective articles about notable topics, verifiable by citing evidence from reliable third-party sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Drm310,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

SWS

Hello, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on Sahilwithstaple's comments. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: I looked for evidence of an affiliation between them and the subject matter, and I didn't find anything. In reading the discussion, I think they misinterpreted the username policy, and there is also possibly a slight language barrier. I'll add some comments of my own. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleted

Hi Drm310, I've seen that the new page I created recently has been deleted due to promotional content. I'd like to ask you how can I make this page non-promotional and have it accepted by Wikipedia's rules. Which part of the content you think should be cancelled in order to have a proper page?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco Bianchi 24 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Francesco Bianchi 24: I am not an administrator, so I cannot see deleted content. If you want it restored, you will have to submit a request at WP:REFUND. However, you also have the draft article, Draft:Cubbit. If this is the same content, then you already have it in the proper location.

I must also advise you that if you are employed by this company, or you are a third party paid to represent their interests, you must disclose this information per Wikipedia's terms of use and paid editing disclosure policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The Southland Journal page has reputable citations and the page is in regards to a local media site in the south suburbs of Chicago.

Thesouthlandjournal (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thesouthlandjournal: The onus is on you to provide citations to reliable, unaffiliated sources to prove that this company is notable enough for inclusion.

Your username, BTW, violates Wikipedia's username policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 'Speedy deletion nomination of Endeavor Business Media'

Hello, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and did not intend to create an entry that is considered 'unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." The entry was written as a company biography as my company does not currently have an entry on Wikipedia. The citations are from reputable news sources and the company website, which I believed to be following Wikipedia's standards. I was hoping that once I published it, other Wikipedia users would help improve the entry.

Also you advised, "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"." I did not see a button on the linked page to contest the speedy deletion, but I would like to contest it, please.

Is there a way to resolve this without deleting the entry? I've read the links about writing your first Wikipedia article and believed I was following the correct procedure to create a factual, non-biased company history about Endeavor Business Media. Please let me know what I can do to resolve this. Thank you! Abigail Christine (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abigail Christine: Hello. At present I'm currently in the middle of my workday at my real-life job. Therefore, I won't be able to exchange correspondence in a timely manner.

As the name speedy deletion implies, there can be a very short time between nomination and deletion. It appears that the administrator DGG deleted the page before you or anyone else contested the deletion. In some circumstances, deleted pages can be restored on request. In this case it won't be possible, because it was deleted for reasons of unambiguous advertising or promotion and unambiguous copyright infringement. You might try contacting DGG directly to see if there are means to restore the content partially to the draft article space.

You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia - even if you are the copyright holder - unless it has properly released by the verified copyright holder into the public domain or under a license compatible with Wikipedia's. This allows anyone - not just Wikipedia - to copy, distribute and/or adapt your content into derivative works, free of charge and in perpetuity. Granting this permission is both permanent and irrevocable.

Please be aware that just because a company exists, it is not automatically entitled to have an article on Wikipedia. It must meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable company to be considered worthy of inclusion. Content must be verifiable to reliable, third-party sources and written from a neutral point of view.

Please also be aware that writing about your own company is an inherent conflict of interest (COI). COI editing is not prohibited outright, but highly discouraged due to the inherent difficulty writing from the required neutral point of view, without promotional intent. Also, if you are an employee of Endeavor Business Media, you are required to disclose this information per Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy before making any further edits about this company. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I will restore it to Draft space, if you can explain or clearu p the copyright problem. Otherwise, you may make a new version in Draft space, using the WP:Article Wizard, DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you to both of you for your helpful responses as I learn the Wikipedia process - it is much appreciated! I do believe that Endeavor Business Media meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable company and is therefore worthy of inclusion (many of the company's affiliated brands have Wikipedia pages, for example, and there are multiple external news sources/citations about the company). I am confident that I can rewrite the text to meet Wikipedia's standards and remove any text that fell under unambiguous advertising or promotion and unambiguous copyright infringement. Further, I am an employee of the company and will happily disclose that, but I'm unclear on how to do that in advance of writing the article in the draft space. I certainly don't want to do anything else that would be subject to speedy deletion, as I am trying to create a factual, unbiased page for the company. Again, thank you for your help! Abigail Christine (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, DGG, if you could please explain how I may access the page in the Draft space so I may fix the copyright problem? I would appreciate it. Thank you and apologies for my very green Wikipedia skills -- I'm trying my best to learn quickly! Abigail Christine (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @DGG: regarding the above comment. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

replied on the user's talk page. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What sock puppetry isn't

Hi there,

I saw you left this message for a new user. Could you elaborate as to why? Two users collaborating on a draft isn't sock/meat puppetry, of course -- it's just collaboration. Their user page even has a notice that they're participating in an edit-a-thon event (where people learn about and edit Wikipedia as a group, usually on a theme). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I had not noticed the userpage of one of the users identifying them as a participant of a edit-a-thon. This is what triggered my {{uw-agf-sock}} notice:

The accounts had both been recently created.
SCWritesWiki had edited in the sandbox of Facterium. Most new users are unaware of the existence of their own sandbox, let alone another user's.
SCWritesWiki's edits appeared in the recent changes filter, flagging possible promotional edits.

I admit I jumped the gun on these users. Most of the time I get it right identifying spam accounts and sockpuppets, but I was wrong this time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough! With the flags I get why you raised an eyebrow anyway. New users editing each others' sandboxes to collaborate is pretty common at edit-a-thons, as well as in classroom projects. The latter is usually better documented than the former these days, but I wonder if the good faith template in particular should include a line about such events... food for thought. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello there! I realize that my page has been deleted due to some violations. May i kindly ask that you un-delete it so i can edit it and make sure there aren't any user violations.

Thank youBontle Lulu Lesiapeto (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bontle Lulu Lesiapeto: Hello. I am not an administrator, so I do not have the ability to restore deleted content. You may make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Added information to profile

DRM, Thank you for pointing this out to me. I haven't used Wikipedia to contribute in about 10 years, and things look different now. I did add the {{paid}} to my profile. Do I need to do anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfranza (talk • contribs)

@Lfranza: Thanks for making that declaration. You're right, things have changed a lot if you've been absent for ten years. In 2014, Wikipedia made a policy change to make it mandatory to disclose any editing in exchange for compensation (monetary or otherwise). Thankfully you have complied with this policy.

There are still some problems with your draft submission. The reviewer has taken issue with the fact that is it still overly promotional in tone, and not written from the required neutral point of view. This is a common problem for editors with an inherent conflict of interest. You have to write from the perspective of a dispassionate, neutral third party, with no interest in how the subject is portrayed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

YogiFi Smart Yoga Mat - I have followed each guideline but you still flagged my page.

Hi There, This is the third time I cannot seem to get the page activated. I have followed all the guidelines and also looked at other pages like Peloton and others that have the same sections and things. Can you please tell me why this keeps happening and what you need me to change? I cannot figure out what about the page is wrong. Please help. Thanks, YogiFiSmartYogaMat (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Rachel Anne

@YogiFiSmartYogaMat: There are multiple reasons why your submission was not acceptable and why your account was subsequently blocked.

Your account name was named after a business, which is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Accounts can only represent individuals, not companies, organizations or groups of people. That reason alone is grounds for a block.
Please be aware that people, organizations, products, etc. are not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist. A topic must be notable by Wikipedia's definition; this means it must have already have been written about by multiple reliable, third-party sources with no vested interest in the topic.
You are editing about your own company, which is an inherent conflict of interest (COI). Although not outright prohibited, is it highly discouraged because COI editors are often incapable of being objective judges of the notability of their topic, and write from the required neutral point of view.
However, editors that are paid by the subject of their writing (e.g. if you're writing about your employer, or a client) must abide by Wikipedia's mandatory and non-negotiable policy of paid editing disclosure. Failing to disclose that you are being compensated for your editing is a violation of this policy and Wikipedia's terms of use. Accounts can be blocked for this violation.
Writing about a topic that is non-notable and where you have an obvious conflict of interest will be seen as promotion. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion/publicity/advertising. Some COI editors honestly believe that their writing isn't promotional - but even just telling the world about the existence of a non-notable product/business/organization is still promotion.
As already noted on your talk page, you copied and pasted text from your own website onto Wikipedia. For policy and legal reasons, you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia, even if you are the copyright holder. That is because Wikipedia's licenses allow anyone to copy, re-use and create derivative works using Wikipedia content. Therefore, content posted on Wikipedia must be in the public domain or released under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's. You can donate your copyrighted material, but it must follow our process that verifies the copyright owner and gives authorization to release the material. Any content donated to Wikipedia is released permanently and irrevocably.

The bottom line is that if your only motivation for editing Wikipedia is for your employer's own self-serving purposes, it is unlikely that your account will ever be unblocked. However, if you wish to become an individual Wikipedia editor, contributing to topics that are outside of your conflict of interest, then please follow the unblock instructions on your talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

your two emails to me

It took a while to be able to answer. Thank you for your help. There is no conflict of interest. Wikipedia has now changed my father's site and it is O.K. I have sent a draft of my site per email to another person from Wikipedia who also contacted me. I don't know what "typing four tildes" mean. Can you please give me an example? Thank you. Enoneo.Enoneo (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Re Enoneo. I have just looked at my "new" revised site and want to thank you so much for it. Am knocked out about all the sources you have listed and how professional it looks. Am extremely grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoneo (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Enoneo: Actually, it was the dedicated work of the editor by the name of "Possibly" that improved the article of Noel Wood. You may wish to extend your thanks to them at User talk:Possibly. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Preh - English Wikipedia site

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

thank you for your message. It is more than far from me to pursue a financial intention behind the creation of an English text for the company Preh. I am an employee of this company, which has been operating on the market for more than 100 years and is a relevant player in the fields of Car HMI, Commercial Vehicle HMI and Electromobility. I would like to provide the content in German and English only for information purposes and to reflect the relevance of the company also in the Wikipedia community. Unfortunately I am a Wikipedia newbie and don't get any support from any side, so please bear with me, or even better give me a short info how to do it better. Thanks a lot

With kind regards Sven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Ress (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sven Ress: Writing about your employer, whether or not you were directed to do so, still makes you a paid editor. You are representing their interests, therefore you must disclose this in accordance with the policy. Using the {{paid}} template on your userpage (User:Sven Ress) is the preferred method.

After reviewing the paid editing disclosure policy, I would advise you to then review the plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Wikipedia readers expect plainly factual articles, neutrally worded and reliably sourced to third parties, written independently of their subjects. Even well-meaning contributors can introduce unconscious biases into writing about subjects to which they are connected personally or professionally.

Finally, if you still believe that this company meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, then consult the guide entitled Your first article. This should guide you through the steps of creating a draft article that can then be reviewed by other uninvolved editors. Best of luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Enoneo

Hello Drm310. As your excellent editor has completely reviewed my Wikipedia site, added sources, etc. is there any reason for still having the two templates? The site doesn't need to be deleted now.--Enoneo (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Enoneo: Are you referring to the article Ann Grocott? If so, the deletion debate must be allowed to run its course. You are free to add comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Grocott. If the concerns which motivated the editor to nominate it for deletion have been satisfied, then you can leave a comment on the deletion debate page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I have a semi protection over the page

I have done a constructive argument but this is my surname and someone else changing the article frequently. I have undo my previous article. Thank you for looking at my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6580:C500:5A00:F533:CCD5:C446:8A29 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my message on your talk page. You have zero rights of ownership or control over any Wikipedia article. Anyone may change its content at any time, and you are required to assume good faith of other editors unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Drm310 I have written down some references to be added to my Ann Grocott Wikipedia site, but I put them on my Talk site so, perhaps I should have mentioned them to you, instead. I am not allowed to make changes to my site. Can you please get your editor to add the references I have put down. I repeat them here: "The Oxford Companion to Australian Children's Literature"; "Fly for livet, MICKY"by Ann Grocott, Pub: Wahlstroms, 1987. ISBN 91-32-12837-1; "Fridas farlige faerd" by Ann Grocott, Pub: Tellerup, 1989. ISBN 87-588-0358-0. Thank you.--Enoneo (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Ann Grocott. Let's consolidate the discussion at that location. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks Vattanak.wiki (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Australian Children's Literature

Dr310. I looked it up online (because that, apparently, is where you get your sources) and on my deletion page, one of your writers mentioned that, if I was in the Oxford Companion book, that was all you needed re my writing. It certainly does mention my books on that site. I see that the templates have now been removed. Thank you. Enoneo--Enoneo (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to comment on this

WP:COIN#Indus Hospital and Health Network - The editor edited the Indus article today despite your substantial efforts in alerting them to the need not to do so, for which much thanks. This may be under pressure from their employment, which puts them in a very difficult personal position. Fiddle Faddle 08:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The editor has been page blocked. Thank you for your attention to their edits. Fiddle Faddle 08:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Well, I tried my best. If after that they are still exhibiting WP:IDHT, then they surely deserve the block they got. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Drm310, We both tried. It's not even as if their paid status is justified with their latest edit request! Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank the person(s) who persevered with my Wikipedia page and brought it up-to-date. I am very grateful. Drm310 thank you for remaining polite and helpful despite my numerous inept posts. Enoneo --Enoneo (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Enoneo: You're quite welcome. Wikipedia is a confusing place with complex rules and unspoken conventions... it's easy for anyone to be overwhelmed by it all. I'm glad the end result was satisfactory for all involved. All the best to you! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Eindhoven News

Hi Drm310 Thank you for letting me know your concerns. I am new to Wikipedia. I am not being benefitted either directly or indirectly. Eindhoven News is a non-profit organisation of which I am part. All of us are volunteers who run an English online News source in The Netherlands. Eindhoven News has been in service to the 40,000 + internationals living in the region for the past 12 years so we felt that it is only right that an article about Eindhoven News is on Wikipedia. I have not hidden any information about my role in Eindhoven News. It's an honest and fair update. I understand this spurs second thoughts because a team member of Eindhoven News posts the draft on Wikipedia. I urge you to check the information and point out if I have given any superlative or propaganda type of material. I am only in all fairness looking to post an article about a genuine news publication on Wikipedia. I am not an employee nor am I benefitted financially or in kind. I am a volunteer. It's a mere social initiative by the internationals for the internationals living in the region. Hope I have sufficiently informed you. Kindly let me know if you need more information. Thanks. Beena Edward Arunraj (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Beena Arunraj

@Beena Edward Arunraj: Thank you for clarifying your role with this organization. However, I should make you aware of certain things about how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a general reference guide for topics that are considered notable. A topic is notable if it has gained sufficiently significant interest by the world at large and over a period of time. We use evidence from reliable third-party sources to gauge this attention. For an organization to be considered notable, it must pass the notability criteria for organizations; mere existence is not enough. Your organization must have already received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the organization itself. In terms of notability, Wikipedia makes no distinction between for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations.

Someone involved with an organization and writing about it on Wikipedia is considered to be a conflict of interest (COI). COI editing is not prohibited outright, but it is a very difficult task. Your proximity to the subject makes it very difficult for you to be an objective judge of the organization's notabilty, and write from the required neutral point of view. You will also find it difficult to rely only on third-party sources for your information, and refrain from using primary or self-published sources, or unverifiable original research (personal knowledge or experience).

It is for these reasons that Wikipedia has little interest in what an organization wishes to say about itself. Even if you're making a good-faith attempt to write objectively, you may unconsciously write in a way that is considered promotional, which is not allowed. Just announcing your organization's existence to the world could still be considered promotional if it is not notable.

Therefore, if you wish to continue working on your draft, I advise that you try to forget about everything you know about your organization and see what information you can gather that is written by completely unconnected sources. If there is little to no outside in-depth coverage, then regrettably your organization probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Drm310 Thank you for clarifying. I wish to continue with my draft and it's quite easy to furnish third-party citations however those would be mostly in Dutch-that's the challenge. But there are a few available in English.Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beena Edward Arunraj (talk • contribs) 21:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beena Edward Arunraj: Dutch-language sources are acceptable if no quality English-language sources exist, and they meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Also, if you haven't already done so, please visit Help:Footnotes to learn the proper method of inserting references for your draft. Best of luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)