User talk:SunnyBeachTourist

Welcome!

Hello, SunnyBeachTourist, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Balkan Holidays, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GPL93 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Balkan Holidays

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Balkan Holidays, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GPL93 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:SunnyBeachTourist. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=SunnyBeachTourist|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of simply deleting it why did you not give me the opportunity to edit and add to the page? Why did you not point out the issues such as a simple thing like "bold" names and ask me to remove the bold? Why did you not ask for additional resources to be placed before making a decision? If refs are not formatted properly, HELP or GUIDE me as you can see I am new at creating pages. You are so quick to simply delete and remove without helping people make Wiki better. It's a real shame actually this page got you. And actually the sources were independent, you calling ITV and TTG part of Balkan Holidays now are you? SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Balkan Holidays

Could you change the wording of it so that id doesn't seem too much of an ad? An example is "Keen to get their economy back on track, the then Communist Bulgarian Government created an all-encompassing organisation known as Balkan Tourist" to "The Bulgarian government established Balkan Tourist to help rebuild its economy". Thanks Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"With the imminent departure of the United Kingdom from the EU. Balkan Holidays have assured clients that pricing will not increase as a result of Brexit." should be "Since the UK would leave the EU, ...". Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigos, no problem. Will have these amendments made now. Could you tell me why this article is recommended for speedy deletion? I don't understand as there is absolutely no copyright.SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Hi Nigos, I have now amended the points you raised, is there any other text that needs amended to be more suitable for publishing? RegardsSunnyBeachTourist (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Balkan Holidays

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Balkan Holidays requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://issuu.com/tourismsociety/docs/tourism_journal_163_final. 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. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 13:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I don't understand? This ban was for 31 hours and expired yesterday but it keeps updating to a new date and time why? SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Please try now. Yamla (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no block on this account currently. Please post an exact copy of any message that you get when you attempt to edit. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it was when I was trying to contest the deletion, now it's been deleted before I can get the chance so I cannot re-create the message. This is really upsetting as I keep having to redo the page. The copyright call was incorrect as the content belongs to the company and they were responsible for the article. There was no copyright if only I had been given sufficient time to provide the answer. Now I have to re-do the entire article. This really is not a great way of doing things. All I want to do is create an article for a brand that I love and has many thousands of fans but I simply cannot because at every turn I am getting problems here. Help someone please! SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, we don't want you to redo the page. You should avoid writing about subjects for which you have a conflict of interest and must avoid promotional content, as that clearly was. As to the copyright, all you need to do is have the original source issue a statement or modify their copyright notice, indicating the contents are released to the public domain or released under one of the free licenses acceptable to Wikipedia. What's not acceptable is to simply reuse content marked as copyrighted, as you were doing. If you are able to get them to publicly release the content as specified, I'll be happy to email you a copy of the article prior to deletion. Note that WP:COPYRIGHT is incredibly serious; copyright violations literally place the entire project in legal jeopardy, so we are required to act quickly when one is discovered. --Yamla (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk), The "source" you are referring to is an article by Balkan Holidays in a printed magazine that someone has made digital. How on earth does Wikipedia expect Balkan Holidays or myself for that matter to get that changed? The article and that publication are not even identical. They are similar because they speak of the same subject, which is Balkan Holiday's history. How can I get some common sense applied here? SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article used substantial content from that journal. You don't need to entire thing to be a direct copy, many sentences were lifted directly. If you are unable to get a clear statement from the journal (or from the original content creator, showing the journal took the content from there) releasing the content to the public domain or under a free license, you can not and must not use the content. This isn't optional; WP:COPYRIGHT is critical to the long-term survival of the entire Wikipedia project. --Yamla (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk) I can get confirmation from the Sales Manager at Balkan Holidays who wrote and appears in the published article from 2015 but how would I apply his confirmation that he is the original author and provided the content? SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in WP:COPYRIGHT. You'd need to provide evidence that it was published elsewhere prior to being republished in the journal. You'd then need to have the copyright owner note that the content is released to the public domain, or freely licensed under a specific, appropriate license. Alternatively, you could have the journal release the content. WP:COPYRIGHT goes into more detail. Note that I will not support you being unblocked to continue writing about subjects such as Balkan Travel, for which you have a conflict of interest, given your violations of WP:PROMO. Other administrators may decide to overrule my concerns and unblock you anyway. But first, you must deal with the copyright issue. --Yamla (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk) In order to write about a topic, you need to have an affiliation with it. And that is the case with me. I am disappointed that you feel the need to block me for having a keen interest in getting an important brand on Wikipedia yet the other travel brands in the same category such as Jet2 holidays, Thomas Cook, TUI etc can all have a presence on Wikipedia. Balkan Holidays is just as important and I have stated in my conflict that I am a keen supporter of the brand. For you to find this a valid reason to block me is really disappointing. All the pages I have just mentioned were created by editors connected to the brand and it can be proven. I urge you to take caution in being so hostile towards me and Balkan Holidays who have done nothing wrong. I will get the copyright sorted before submitting the article for approval as you have requested. SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, Wikipedia very much prefers that editors not have an affiliation with the subjects they write about. Please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read other stuff exists. Other brands meriting articles does not automatically mean that yours merits one too. Not every business or brand merits an article here, even within the same field. Please review Wikipedia's definition of a notable business. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, prove it. Be careful about WP:OUTING, but I'm very interested to see your proof. This is important, you've made serious accusations that other editors have acted unethically and have violated Wikipedia's terms of use and policies. --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk) I can see that I am being tempted to say something in order to be banned again so I will avoid accusing anyone and I will state that I have not directly accused anyone, simply stated that if needed, I am sure it could be proven. While Wikipedia may prefer authors to 'not' have an affiliation with the topic, I am sure you can appreciate for Wikipedia to be accurate and have the most factual articles, some knowledge is required, whether that is through affiliation or not so that ultimately the article is the best it can be. I believe that there are sufficient independent sources and criteria is met to warrant Balkan Holidays having an article on Wikipedia. They are a notable brand which has substantial interest to the public. I am currently working with the publisher of the article to have the copyright issue sorted and will update when this has been done.SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would bother, as I very much doubt you will find an administrator willing to unblock you to edit about this brand, which even if you aren't an employee, are clearly closely affiliated with. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are already blocked(not banned, which is different) so you can't be blocked again. But please refrain from making accusations you are not willing to back up(while complying with WP:OUTING). 331dot (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry if I came across as tempting you to violate WP:OUTING; that wasn't my intention. I tried to explicitly warn you about that policy to ensure you wouldn't violate it, and you are welcome to email me your evidence rather than post it publicly, if you wish. For the record, I investigated Jet2holidays and determined there was no violation of WP:COI (or at least, the evidence I found pointed to no violation). You are, of course, correct that a number of Wikipedia articles are created by people with a vested interest in the subject area, violating WP:COI and WP:PROMO. That's deeply inappropriate and we work hard to shut those pages down when we find them. We don't catch them all, of course, but we do try. You may very well be correct that Balkan Holidays is sufficiently notable (see WP:NOTE) to justify a Wikipedia article. However, it shouldn't be written by someone with any form of conflict of interest and it must not violate WP:PROMO and WP:COPYRIGHT. Thank you for working toward a resolution on the copyright issue. --Yamla (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk) Well I can see you've already placed a block on me for apparently trying to rectify a copyright issue on a draft article so thank you for that! Regarding Jet2 Holidays, of course there was no violation for a brand that is part of two huge Wikipedia projects and is one of the largest tour operators in the UK. I can see how no wrong could possibly be done there ever, they are far too important to Wikipedia to ever do anything below Wikipedia's strict rules of course! It is okay though, you claim that people must know about the topic they write about yet can have no connection to them, even though I clearly stated in my COI that I am a keen supporter of the brand. So you are now saying that simply being a supporter of the brand is a violation. Thanks! I will have this copyright sorted, I will then pass this article to another Balkan Holidays fan here in the UK, and when you try block them or remove their article even though they have no connection other than being a customer who is passionate about the topic, I look forward to continuing from there. Whatever problem you editors have with Balkan Holidays, whether it is protecting the "bigger brands" in the same market or whatever it is, I will continue to fight it. This article about Balkan Holidays is factual, it is accurate and informative and follows the accepted style of the published Jet2 Holidays article. There is no sales or self promotion content that cannot be found on the Jet2 Holidays article. You have used a copyright as the excuse now, but I would love to see what reason you come up with next time.SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not helping you to threaten meatpuppetry. It's one thing to merely be a fan of a company or a user of its services, but you seem to be in close contact with the company about this. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) I am frustrated at how you treat the brand for no reason whatsoever. There is a clear vendetta and hostile approach to them, why? The article is informative and factual and useful for the general public. I am a loyal customer who had travelled with them for over 20 years and I find it really disturbing how this is a problem for you. The article will be submitted again in the future, copyright free and by someone else who doesn't even know the company like I do and I really look forward to how you find a way to keep them off Wikipedia again. It's clearly personal as my last few days of Interaction with you has shown. You ask for someone to state their connection, we do and then you still find it unacceptable. Why? SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about meatpuppetry. By threatening to pass this off to someone else, you've put anyone who edits about this brand at risk of being blocked, as we have no way to know who is sitting at the other end of the computer editing(if it is you or someone else). 331dot (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no vendetta against anything, I didn't know this existed until today. But certain policies need to be adhered to. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) Oh I can assure you it won't be myself, I will be willing to go to court if necessary to prove it. As we know, money talks on Wikipedia lol! With regards to the article itself, I agree that policies need to be adhered to and that is why following the suggested edits to the text earlier today it was changed and then when the copyright infringement was raised, I assured action would be taken to correct it, sadly you have felt the need to immediately delete the article even though it was only a draft and then follow that up with the ban hammer even though I already acknowledged and confirmed the copyright would be addressed before the article was submitted for the main site again. These are all indications of the personal nature of you and the other editor have approached me today and Balkan Holidays who I support. Tell me again why I was blocked from editing on "copyright infringement" grounds although I stated I would correct the copyright? SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot prove that you are not using another account, as one cannot prove a negative. This is why WP:MEAT is a policy. If you aren't going to request unblock, there is nothing further to discuss. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) Oh I can assure you that when you are physically watching 2 people in 2 different locations and what they are doing live on their screens you can prove anything. It will be a very entertaining live creation of an article in a court room setting that is for sure! As you're experienced and quote a significant number of Wiki pages to me, you tell me, is there any point in requesting an unblock when I am already blacklisted as a thorn in your side for my determination to see this through? SunnyBeachTourist (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are doubling and tripling down on meatpuppetry, and seem to have no intention to request unblock, I have decided to remove your talk page access to prevent more time wasting for anyone else(including yourself). If you later decide to abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, you can use WP:UTRS to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Draft:Balkan Holidays article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you immediately resumed violating copyright, I have had to block you indefinitely to protect Wikipedia. You may be unblocked by any administrator once you get the Tourism Society to release the content to the public domain, or under a free license. Most administrators will additionally require that you stop violating WP:COI and WP:PROMO and commit to only writing about subject areas for which you have no conflict of interest, given your repeated violations. --Yamla (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrable UPE

Just a note for any admins potentially reviewing this block in the future; OTRS#2019090210004922 (from this user) pretty much knocks the claim that they are not editing for pay out of the ballpark (a simple Google search of the name attached to that email together with "Balkan Holidays" reveals their actual relationship with the company). Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made a UTRS request(since the notifications don't seem to be on) 331dot (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: User requests talk page access by OTRS following their UTRS request. As you say, the UTRS notifications are off temporarily during a fix at Wikipedia_talk:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System. If there is a resolution to this case then please do it on wiki and not at OTRS. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

This user has engaged in block evasion in September, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]