User talk:Annaspencer13Welcome!Hi Annaspencer13! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics. If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Happy editing! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikilinks and External links.Hello. Just a small correction to your helpful edit summaries: When you add [[]] around a word, we call that a 'WIKILINK' as it is an internal link to another Wikipedia article. By contrast, an External link goes to another website entirely. External links only appear in a separate section at the bottom of an article, and never within the main body of text. For very obvious names, like Japan, there's often little need to wikilink it as it is universally known (though it does no harm to have it). By contrast, I've corrected your wikilink in Local nature reserve so that it directs to Scottish Natural Heritage via a REDIRECT to its new name, as a link to Scottish Gaelic was simply not correct. But not to worry - it's a learning curve and I appreciate your starting your editing journey today. You might wish to try out The Wikipedia Adventure for a fun, interactive tour of editing here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Overlinking.Hi Annaspencer13, I noticed you added a wikilink to Japan in the Oda Nobunaga article. Thanks for the edit summary. Just FYI -- at some point in the near future someone is likely to remove that wikilink because it duplicates an identical wikilink two sentences earlier. The general idea is that although wikilinks can be useful to an article, they distract the reader from the article text and so duplicates should be avoided, since the duplicates add no value. The detailed explanation is here and here. Best wishes, Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC) COIDo you have an affiliation with Ben Kallos or Cypherpunk Holdings Inc.? If you do, you need to declare it per WP:COI. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC) October 2021Hello Annaspencer13. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Ben Kallos, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:Annaspencer13. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussionThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Taylor Jeffs
A tag has been placed on Taylor Jeffs, 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. firefly ( t · c ) 17:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Comment on my talk pageHello Annaspencer13, I got your message on my talk page, and thought I'd respond here. As you were told when you asked at Village Pump, creating new articles is really not a good way to get started with Wikipedia - work on editing and improving existing articles until you get the hang of it. With that said, I'll be frank: your pattern of editing is highly unusual for a new editor. You started out with ten very minor edits (which just happens to be the number required for an account to be autoconfirmed), and then added a huge amount of information (much of it promotional) to V. Raghavan. The next day, you again made a large number of highly promotional edits to Manhattan House. You then created a new article for Taylor Jeffs, and added a huge amount of (again, promotional) material to Ben Kallos (far beyond "a few edits"). You've said that the V. Raghavan and Manhattan House edits were based on "research" you did. Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out the circumstances in which someone would decide to "research" and make large additions to such an unusual range of topics (a Sanskrit scholar, a NYC city council member, the CEO of a company that plans events for theme parks, and a NYC apartment building) right off the bat. Typically, when we see this kind of behavior in a new user, it's an indication of some form of paid editing, which is why I asked you about it above. Can you provide any insight into how you decided to edit those particular articles? Thanks, BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Taylor Jeffs moved to draftspaceAn article you recently created, Taylor Jeffs, 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 " Your submission at Articles for creation: Taylor Jeffs (October 20) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
The comment the reviewer left was:
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.
Wikipedia and copyrightHello Annaspencer13! Your additions to Draft:Tony Vázquez-Figueroa have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Taylor Jeffs (October 26) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were:
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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Taylor Jeffs (November 5) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:
The comment the reviewer left was:
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.
AfC notification: Draft:Alice Jacobs has a new comment
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alice Jacobs. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Alice Jacobs (November 9) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
The comment the reviewer left was:
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.
Speedy deletion nomination of The Gibbons Group - Real Estate Team
A tag has been placed on The Gibbons Group - Real Estate Team, 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. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC) November 2021Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text
Your submission at Articles for creation: Alice Jacobs (November 9) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
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.
November 2021
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} . Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Unblock Appeal
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).
Annaspencer13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Hello. I noticed I am blocked as a sock-puppet for making indefinite changes.I'm sorry but that's honestly not my intention. Can you help me in how to disclose that I am a paid editor for 2-4 clients now and I would have to work on their pages. Sorry again as I was new here, I was just trying. I didn't want to promote or abuse anyone. I'm here to learn and we all are learning. I'll visit teahouse before proceeding with anything now. Please let me know what I can do, thankyou. Annaspencer13 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Decline reason: We really aren't interested in you doing that. Yamla (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 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. Your submission at Articles for creation: Tony Vázquez-Figueroa (January 22) Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by FormalDude was:
The comment the reviewer left was:
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.
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia