User talk:Wizenthorne

Paid-contribution disclosure

I am a retired professional who edits on Wikipedia solely for pleasure. I receive no monetary compensation for any contributions to Wikipedia nor will I entertain offers of that nature. If I create a new page or edit pages of companies, non-profit organizations, living persons, products, or places, I do so voluntarily. Should you find the subject of a page I've created or edited to be lacking in notability or quality, you are at liberty to respond appropriately per Wikipedia guidelines. As an unpaid volunteer, I hold no financial stake in the status any page or edit, and will, at most, submit a rebuttal to a deletion flag should the issue arise or revert a change which was not sufficiently discussed prior that major change being made.

Thank you for taking the time to inspect my work, and feel free to offer suggestions for improvement in a constructive manner. --Wizenthorne (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wizenthorne, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wizenthorne! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Wizenthorne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve DivaDance Company

Thanks for creating DivaDance Company.

A New Page Patroller Jmcgnh just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

needs better coverage of the company rather than reviews of its in-class experience

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dr. Sustand Love Research Foundation Organization Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Sustand Love Research Foundation Organization Logo.png. 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) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Doc James has provided absolutely no evidence that I am a paid contributor, and in fact, I am not. Creating pages for individuals and organizations I believe worthy of Wikipedia entries does not mean I am receiving financial compensation. This banning is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for how to handle Conflict of Interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest . You want individuals to contribute time and money to the goals of Wikipedia, then treat them like sneaky dirtbags when they do. I don't even know how a person would go about making money for writing Wikipedia articles but it is OBVIOUSLY allowed so why wouldn't I disclose monetary compensation if I was getting paid, which I've ALREADY stated I'm not. Wizenthorne (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Doc James didn't accuse you of being a paid editor. You were blocked for using Wikipedia as a promotional platform and giving the appearance that this is your only purpose here. Whether that's because you were paid to do so or that you have an unpaid conflict of interest isn't relevant to this block (although if you do have an association with the subjects you've written about, you do need to disclose that). Finally, your unblock appeal comes across as an attack on others and fails to address the activity you engaged in which led to your block.

That said, I had a look at the sommelier article you wrote and while it did come across as promotional to the point of depicting a halo on the subject's head, it was a well-sourced article that could be kept with a rewrite. I'm open to unblocking, but the bluster in your appeal doesn't fill me with confidence that you fully understand the reason for your block. You are welcome to make another appeal, this time considering how your activity looks to others, particularly admins charged with maintaining the stability of Wikipedia and ensuring that articles and editor behavior comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

First, let me apologize if my appeal came across as having too much bluster. I wrote it in anger due to what I perceived as complete disrespect to me as a human being and a contributor to Wikipedia. Instead of making an attempt to communicate with me, I was banned for what I feel was an inaccurate reason. True, the stated reason was for advertising, but Doc James' act of locating every article I've ever written, moving then to Drafts, and flagging them all as possible undisclosed payment is in fact an accusation that I received compensation for my contributions. So yes, I do understand the stated reason for being banned but I also understand the implied reason, which is what I was trying to address. Instead of considering the merits of each article and making a determination on them, they were all moved with prejudice to Drafts, by one individual. In fact, other editors on Wikipedia have already reviewed some of the articles I've written and made determinations as to whether or not they appear advert and are notable. If I am passionate about something, I speak about it with high regard. I did attempt to remain impartial when writing articles, though it sounds like I may have failed in this with some of my work. I apologize for this, and I wish I could have had a conversation with Doc James about this before he placed a ban on my account. It sounds like I have more to learn about writing articles as well as navigating the politics of Wikipedia. I would like to request another opportunity to contribute. In the future, I will ask for assistance from other editors to review my work for impartiality before moving them out of Draftspace. I feel this would be an acceptable route to allow continued contributions to Wikipedia without further risk of promotional issues. Thank you for your consideration. Wizenthorne (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2019 (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.

This "I receive no monetary compensation for any contributions to Wikipedia" does not appear to be accurate. I am happy to share further evidence with fellow admins if they email me. Combine this with the obvious promotional nature of many of the articles and there is a very strong concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user than tried to get another user to publish the content they are being paid for here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

obviously allowed

Would you mind explaining that?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Wikipedia "obviously allows" paid editing because there is a whole article on how to disclose this status. It is not encouraged, but it is permitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#How_to_disclose . I would have followed these procedures, if I was being financially compensation for anything I do on Wikipedia. I am not, and have not been, so I have requested that my ban be removed. Wizenthorne (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Belinda Chang (sommelier)

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 Belinda Chang (sommelier), 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. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Richard Osborn (guitarist)

Hello, Wizenthorne. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Richard Osborn".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wizenthorne, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:DivaDance Company concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:DivaDance Company, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:DivaDance Company

Hello, Wizenthorne. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "DivaDance Company".

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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]