User talk:Tycheana

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Vinvibes! Thank you for your contributions. I am Jianhui67 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Jianhui67^T★C 12:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018 GOCE drive bling

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Vinvibes for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

	Happy New Year
	Hi Tycheana, Sending you a warm greetings for New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalynn Campbell has been accepted

Kalynn Campbell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the article being accepted and your work on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019 GOCE drive bling

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Vinvibes for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chukwunonso Ezekwueche (October 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CaptainEek was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please read WP:42 to understand the basics of notability. Better sources are needed here.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinvibes! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche. Thanks! DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at WP:Teahouse, 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.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the tip, will be using tilde going ahead, regards, Vinvibes 12:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

May I just add that, at present, your signature is still not meeting our requirements, in that you've somehow managed to deactivate the link back from your signature to your userpage. This is a really important thing to fix. See WP:SIGLINK, and the most likely explanation is that when you went to fiddle with your Preferences, you accidentally ticked the empty box in the 'Signature' section which states: "Treat the above as wiki markup. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page." If you could untick that box please, you should be fine. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing me to the right place, even I was wondering why despite the tildes my username was appearing as black and not blue. Hopefully now it is, many thanks, regards, Vinvibes (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Vinvibes! You created a thread called Need Feedback on my submission Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the intimation, have cast my vote. Regards, Vinvibes (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Tycheana! You created a thread called Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - Changed references at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yasmeen Al Maimani (December 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The is only one independent, reliable source in the article. (the other sources here are either not reliable/reputable or they are not independent (associated with the subject). We need at least 2 more independent, reliable such as from major newspapers which the source talk about the subject (Yeasmeen Al Maimani) "directly" in depth and in length and not merely passing mentioned. Sources can be in any languages / "major" newspapers from any countries.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

It's great to see your hard work succeed. Schazjmd (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your article, i found it very well written, keep up the work!!! James The Bond 007 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Yasmeem Al Maimani.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yasmeem Al Maimani.jpg, which you've attributed to https://www.bahrainthisweek.com/to-the-heights-yasmeen-al-maimani-the-first-female-saudi-commercial-pilot/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cameron11598, to be honest this is the first time that I have uploaded an image file on to Wikipedia. I found it on Google with hundereds of other images under the name of the subject, checked the website it was from and having read their terms and conditions, felt that they would not mind if anyone used it despite it being on their page. So what do you suggest I should do next - write to them or tag it as non-free fair use? Your guidance on this issue would be truly appreciated since it would ensure that I would be better placed as a rookie to identify how and which images to upload here. Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Unfortunately their terms and conditions didn't explicitly list the license under which the image is licensed or even if they have permission to license the image. You would need to have them verify the release using this page on commons. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cameron11598, sincere apologies for the late reply, got caught up with holiday preps. Okay - so I will follow the instructions on the page you have indicated and seek permission from them by sending them a mail. But tell me something - what if they dont reply? Is there a stipulation as to the number of days we should wait for the permission to arrive? Suppose they dont respond over a month or so, then what happens? Also since you are definitely a seasoned user, can I request you to help me search for an image that would be fit to go up on the page? There are hundreds of images of the subject on the Internet that come up by simply typing her name on Google, but to identify one that can be used, I could really do with some help and guidance. Thanks once again, regards & Merry Christmas, Tycheana (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Tycheana. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Tycheana! You created a thread called Facing problem with adding of image at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Tycheana. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Faculty of Management Studies – Institute of Rural Management, Jaipur (FMS-IRM), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kapil Sankhla (July 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 DGG was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

the cases do not seem important enough to justify an article

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kapil Sankhla and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kapil Sankhla, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 11:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI

a/c to your workpage, you make a livig a business witer, WP could certainly user editors familiar with the business world, but be careful about COI: Even a general non financial coi kust be declared, andrdirect or indict financial COI must be declared in fulll accordingto WP:COI. And, of course you need to befamilar with the diffreret expections. in the two genres. In particular, in business writing, any reference usually does it/ But form Wikipedia ReferencesI are much more restricted, and must be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks for responding - the COI issue was made known to me when I joined Wikipedia, because of which I have always kept my writing work separate from this platform. You can rest assured that the two don't even come close, let alone overlap. The entire purpose of joining Wikipedia was to take a break and seek exposure to a different style, which is why I ensure that there is no overlapping.

As far as references are concerned, I have worked in the past with reviewers to whet out the sources and through the experience have been able to grasp what is actually required here. That is why I usually don't put up a new page unless I am myself convinced of the sources. In this case, these are not Press Releases or announcements, they are news reports of the topic current at the time in newspapers that are noteworthy enough to be listed here on Wikipedia. Please also note that I have not used the lawyer's blog post as a source and have placed it under external links. Likewise, I have not used any content from his interview too, knowing that it violates the guideline of being independent, and have only used it for education related details mentioned in the intro before the interview. I am well aware of what Press Releases are, and have written quite a few myself, so am certain that the newspaper articles I have used are not promotional in any way but throw light on the situation and the lawyer in a neutral manner. Awaiting further guidance, thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of them are inPR News, a publication devoted entirely to publishing company press releases. Others are pseudo- interviews in trade publications, where the founder says essentially whatever he wants to, in response to friendly leading questions. Indeed, more of and more otherwise respectable publication publish these interviews, and do not distinguish them from news. Many earlier refs in Wikipedia were of this nature, but we nio longer consider them references from truyky independent reliable sources. Nor do we accept mere announcements of funding or change of positions or routine opening of new facilities. There are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, which ones are from pr news?? What I observed in most while checking was that they were under PTI - Press Trust of India - which is responsible for most news published in the country. If you could kindly point out, it would help me to identify such sources for this and for future content. Business Standard and Economic Times are reputed Indian publications that publish news in the commercial arena, and my sources are not interviews, but in fact most have the judges in question conducting the proceedings rather than either side dominating the scenario. India Today is also a reputed publisher, and again the source here is a panel of lawyers, one of them being the subject. When it comes to Indian publications, these are the leading tabloids of the country on current affairs, like the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal in the US. If not these, then which Indian tabloids do you acknowledge as noteworthy? Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For my full response about sources, see my talk page at [1]

But, about the article:

as a general rule, attorney are notable either from being lead attorneys on notable cases, or in having references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements written on them. If you want to base the argument on his cases, try writing articles on them, but I don't think they'll be found notable. As for the refs, most are in the contextof the cases only. Ref 1 is straight pr, .You are right that many of the other articles are not pr , but they are about the particular case, not thie individual.

Im sorry, but I do not see the basis for an acceptable article. But I do not have the last word, and iif some other reviewer accepts it, I will decide whether to challenge it at AfD. The community gets to decide. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I am sorry for having fallen off the radar - please accept my sincere apologies. Two families tested COVID positive in our neighborhood on Thursday evening, and we have all been subjected to rigorous sanitizing and testing since Friday afternoon. So far tests are negative for everyone else, and all of us are fervently hoping that it remains that way. There was also talk about declaring the residential complex a containment zone, so went on a shopping spree to stock up the essentials. Due to all these reasons, haven't logged in over the past 2-3 days.

So the draft - the first one is an interview but I haven't used any content from the interview, but just validated his education and location from the intro preceding the interview. However as it was pointed out at the AfC, such facts are generally taken from the subject's resume and hence are unreliable. So when I edit, will eliminate it altogether. To be honest, going by the Indian sources that are approved here, would it work if I shortened the drat to the 4-5 sources that are acknowledged and eliminate the rest? Then the draft would just have an intro and the 3-4 high-profile cases...?? Seeking guidance, thanks in advance, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cases willl only show notability if they themseleves are so notable there are wp articles about them-about the actual legal cases, not just the general conroversies. From the descriptions of them, I do not think this likely, which means there's no real chance of an article at this time. But another reviewer might feel differently, and you have a right to try. DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, sincere apologies for replying late once again. Couple of cases are mentioned in other Wikipedia pages, and if you want I can point them out because I myself checked on them during my research. That being said, I would like to seek clarification on the following Wikipedia pages which either do not have a reference or have entire sections without any reference validating the facts mentioned -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangler_(profession) - a short article albeit no sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikishi - the intro does not have any reference points

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_railroad_history - not only does this page lack specific sources but also does not conform to the style of writing accepted on this platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretia_Mott - again an entire section - intro - without one single reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debesh_Roy - a one-line intro but again no reference

If you can allow pages such as these to continue to remain, mine is still way better in terms of citing at least a few appropriate sources if not all and using factual style of writing. A clarification on each of them would at least help me understand how exactly this platform works and that its not as if there are different rules for different people. Believe me, when I say that I can flag several such pages on Wikipedia which are way worse than the one you rejected and yet are still up and live. Many thanks, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily find many more examples. There are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. There are even some getting accepted more recently, and I hope we will deal with them also. The least we can do is not add to them. And there is another factor: your article is a biography of a living person and our rules for these are particularly strict, see [WP:BLP]], whereas the examples you mentioned above are not-- there is therefore less urgency to fix them.

I am a volunteer and my purpose is not to devote my time to help you get the article in, but to enforce our rules. If it fits within our rules it will get in ; if not it won't. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, its not a question of helping my article to get approved - I am going to delete the draft today anyway. My intention was to seek guidance from a veteran who has gathered immense experience on this platform. Like you I am also a volunteer here, but unlike you am not as experienced, therefore these queries. With all due respect, I must admit that the rules here are emerging as being highly inconsistent, and acceptance/rejection seems to be more an outcome of whim/fancy of the reviewer in question than anything else. Thanks anyway for your responses, best regards - Tycheana (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you earlier, you are perfectly entitled to revise and resubmit. A different reviewer will evaluate it. If they accept it, then I or anyone might choose to send it to WP:AfD for a community discussion. Only the comunity can make a final determination, DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 5 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

With all due respect I haven't even logged into the platform since the disappointment of my last draft's rejection and having deleted it myself. So where does the question of disruptive editing come? As far as paid editing goes, I have already clarified several times that my writing is a totally separate aspect from my role here and the 2 do not overlap in any way. I know of several paid editors who solely rely on Wikipedia for their earnings, but I have never been one of them, nor do I intend to join the bandwagon. It is because from what I gathered the paid editors claim to be admins here and get their pages through regardless of style or sources and earn big-time, whereas I am just an editor and nothing more. An example being this WIKI expert - https://www.freelancer.com/u/TaffyAU. So even if I wanted, no-one would actually pay me for something I cannot assure as compared to so many others who can. Getting a draft accepted here would be too big a gamble for an editor like me as there is no surety, so I prefer to stick to business/SEO/creative writing for my earnings. If you wish to haul me for my honesty, what can I say? In fact next I was planning to participate in one of the editing drives because it is something that I enjoyed doing in the past. At least for now, am past creating any new drafts owing to being too confused - maybe I need to spend more time doing what I like on this platform, which is editing. Best regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have seen off-wiki evidence that contradicts key aspects of this appeal. A copy was already emailed to paid-en-wp. MER-C 17:03, 6 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is the profile that paid editors have - https://www.freelancer.com/u/TaffyAU, and there are many others like this one floating about. Do you think I come anywhere even close to this in terms of knowledge about the Wiki platform? If you are seriously interested in weeding out paid editors, try searching within the established lot here owing to the confidence they have in getting anything past, as is evident from the profile link, not by penalizing confused newbies like me. Best regards, Tycheana (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The profiles of other paid editors are not of any relevance. You need to properly address the reason *you* are blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

From what I gathered, am being accused of paid editing. So how else do I address the issue unless someone actually confronts me with the proof that they have? In my justification, I can only argue that I am too much of a novice to become a paid editor here, wherein am myself not aware of many norms. Best regards, Tycheana (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No one is harassing you. The vast majority of editors here are not paid and are here simply to improve this project for the benefit of humanity. It's not a violation of policy to be a paid editor as long as it is disclosed. If a user is not disclosing it, especially an administrator, we do want to know about it(privately, to avoid outing as noted). Keep in mind that at least some paid editors will use different names here than they use elsewhere. It sounds like you care little about whether you are unblocked or not, so I see no reason to keep this request open. If you change your mind, you are welcome to make a new request. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2020 (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.

We can't post off-wiki information about you due to this policy on outing users. You would need to waive the right to privacy that policy gives you for us to say any more. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that's how so many of the admins get away with being paid editors and charge a fortune for creating and maintaining pages on this platform. I always wondered that with all the fuss about paid editing how is it that people claiming to have 8+ years on Wikipedia have been getting away with it on other platforms.

I am not waiving anything because to be honest as of now am myself not sure whether I should continue with this toxic relationship. As it is am not getting anything out of it other than exposure to a certain style of writing, so I really don't stand to lose anything if my account remains blocked or is shut down once and for all. In fact, given the current controversy I would regard it as good riddance, because it's really not worth all the undeserved harassment being meted out to me. Best regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(No need to put every response in a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

If there is a single admin being a paid editor, we would very much like to know about it. But making vague accusations against other folks isn't going to help you much. If you are being paid, all you need to do is continue to disclose that fact. Its pretty simple. Say who is paying you, and things become a lot easier. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just go through this profile - https://www.freelancer.com/u/TaffyAU - and kindly explain how someone who claims to have 9+ years experience on various aspects of Wikipedia has been getting away with it. Scroll down and check the projects and the amounts involved, and the first thing that jumps out that he/she is deeply embedded into the system. After that please tell me whether with someone as sure being around on the Internet, who in their right mind would even want to trust a novice like me to get anything done on Wikipedia, leave alone make payment. And this person is not the only one, I can post at least a dozen such profiles here that make a living solely out of Wikipedia. So I am not flinging vague accusations, it is something I have been encountering quite frequently in my field. And what do I disclose, when it is not a source of income for me? The fact that am on Wikipedia over the last 2+ years is something I have not mentioned anywhere on my personal website or any of my professional profiles. Like I said, I don't stand to lose anything if my account remains blocked/closed down, so no regrets at all. Best regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That TaffyAU profile has got nothing to do with your block, but I'll offer a few thoughts about it anyway. Firstly, bear in mind that he's clearly a dishonest person as he's offering paid editing without disclosure. So why would you believe him when he says he has 9+ years experience? Wouldn't you expect an undeclared paid editor to lie? He's hardly likely to say "I haven't got much experience, but I'll give it a go", is he? Most chronic paid editors also switch accounts regularly, so no individual account appears too suspicious. It's very unlikely this person is "deeply embedded into the system" in any kind of high profile way. I'm also as sure as I can be that he's not an admin. If you have genuine evidence of an admin engaging in undeclared paid editing, we want to hear it. But otherwise, you need to drop the generalised accusations.
You ask "who in their right mind would even want to trust a novice like me to get anything done on Wikipedia". But as I point out above, people's real experience and the experience they claim in their job ads can be very different. And their genuine experience can be significantly longer than the age of their current account. Also, paid editors can have extensive web writing experience outside of Wikipedia, and appear attractive to hire even without any stated length of actual Wikipedia experience. So, for example, an editor with a Wikipedia account like yours that's only a couple of years old might still be able to advertise, say, more than 10 years experience of web design, editing, writing, etc. I'm not saying any of this applies to you, I'm just pointing out that your "a novice like me" argument does not hold water.
Anyway, what now? When admin MER-C, above, said "I have seen off-wiki evidence that contradicts key aspects of this appeal", can you think of what that might be? Perhaps something with an innocent explanation? (Feel free to just reply here rather than make a new unblock request). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, CaptainEek, 331dot It's not even just off-wiki evidence it's in their userpage, so their claim holds no weight. Praxidicae (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Yep, I was keeping that up my sleeve and waiting to see what the response might be! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Innocent' or not you can decide, but when I first joined Wikipedia 2+ years back, my very first attempt at creating a draft was on a person named Jesse Bogner, for which I had accepted money and not declared COI owing to not knowing the rules. Then someone pulled me up, and then I declared that I had been paid. After that the draft got rejected owing to not meeting notability requirements, and I refunded the money saying that it was beyond my scope. At the time I was also with freelancer, which I soon quit owing to have been ripped. But that is the one and only experience I can recall here pertaining to being paid. Since then I have been mostly into editing, and made a few attempts at creating new pages as part of the challenge, which has been successful I think twice so far, and futile a number of times, wherein I have promptly deleted the draft. But these have been topics that I have come across during my research work and not because someone might have approached me. Since that first incident, I have steered clear of any financial dealings pertaining to Wikipedia, owing to the COI system being too complicated for my comfort. So if the user in question has seen something regarding the first draft of mine, then he is justified. In my defense, I learned my lesson as a new user 2 years back, and after that have never ventured into the paid work arena on Wikipedia. TaffyAU - I dont think he is random and nor are any of the others, but thats my opinion. Best regards, Tycheana (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had a conversation with DGG and GSS in the last few months, vehemently denying taking any payment for two articles, specifically Kalynn Campbell and Faculty of Management Studies – Institute of Rural Management, Jaipur (FMS-IRM) and yet your Freelancer profile that you yourself linked says otherwise. You've repeatedly denied it here. You are no longer a newbie, you were not unaware of these policies when you heavily edited either article. So...please tell us, how is it that you were paid-but-not-paid and you're being unfairly accused of something? Praxidicae (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know of several paid editors who solely rely on Wikipedia for their earnings, but I have never been one of them, nor do I intend to join the bandwagon. You stated this in the last 48 hours. A lie. You also just stated: Since that first incident, I have steered clear of any financial dealings pertaining to Wikipedia, owing to the COI system being too complicated for my comfort. I'm not sure if you're aware but March 2020 is less than the two years you've claimed to have avoided paid editing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You quit Freelancer two years ago, but your profile is still active and your last feedback there is from 15 days ago? I also have a screenshot of it from before you made a Wikipedia-related change, in case you've forgotten that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]