User talk:E-Stylus

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi E-Stylus! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 19:28, Monday, January 8, 2018 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deborah Smith Pegues (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 AngusWOOF was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Article needs to be adjusted for peacock language.

Many of her jobs and positions should have years behind them as well as news articles about her joining/leaving to back them up.

Watch out for laundry list of media appearances, trim to most important ones. What did she do on those appearances? Promote any particular books or promote her speaking tour?

Need years as to when she established her speaking tours and when she appeared on television/radio.

30 days to taming your tongue looks like the start of a series for her, so those can be listed separately and in chronological order for bibliography

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:Deborah Smith Pegues 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:Deborah Smith Pegues, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deborah Smith Pegues (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 AngusWOOF was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please clean up unreliable sources such as the Google search for her birthday (replace with actual news article or copyright.gov entry which should list her birth year). Remove from the references the linkedin and links to her own self-published websites. If you can comment on which of the references I should pay attention that give significant coverage on the person that isn't coming from a press release/primary source then I can review those to make sure she passes GNG.

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:Deborah Smith Pegues 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:Deborah Smith Pegues, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deborah Smith Pegues (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 AngusWOOF was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I'm not seeing some of the sources connect to her. Some are there just to show that the school or organization existed, but they do not mention her at all. Can you remove those? 14 appears to point to her book (primary source) 15 Highbeam.com newspaper clipping sounds promising but I can't see any further detail from the first paragraph. 16 Magic Johnson theaters does not mention Smith or Pegues at all. 17 facility is just a name drop confirming she was CFO for the church, not significant coverage, 18 highbeam appears to be about the church 23 is harvest house (primary), 24 christian book expo (passing mention), 25 focus on the family is an interview 37 magicjohnson.com is article by Pegues 33 youtube video by pegues, 34 LA Sentinel is a news announcement mentioning Pegues can you highlight again the articles that you think are significant coverage of her by secondary sources independent of the subject?

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:Deborah Smith Pegues 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:Deborah Smith Pegues, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Deborah Smith Pegues has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Deborah Smith Pegues. Thanks! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Deborah Smith Pegues has been accepted

Deborah Smith Pegues, 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!

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity (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) 09:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vecna Robotics (February 9)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by K.e.coffman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rita McGhee (April 27)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Possibly notable but the verbiage is heavily promotional and needs to be cleaned up.

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:Rita McGhee 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:Rita McGhee, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, E-Stylus! 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! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rita McGhee has been accepted

Rita McGhee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hily Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hily 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) 17:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hily (app) (May 29)

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:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Hily (app) 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:Hily (app), 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hily Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hily 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) 17:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amir Marashi has been accepted

Amir Marashi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

Mjs1991 (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefania Skrabak (August 26)

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

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:Stefania Skrabak 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:Stefania Skrabak, 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.

Lapablo (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefania Skrabak (August 27)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by DGG were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is basically a press release. The references are mostly based apparently on press releases,and published either on unreliable websites of local magazines. Interviews where the subject is allowed to say whaever about her work that she pleases are disguised advertisements, not reliable sources.

And hte purpose of this seems to be advertising her deisgn practice. Encyclopedias don't do that.

DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kate Simon (photographer) has been accepted

Kate Simon (photographer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-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!

97198 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stefania Skrabak (September 28)

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

See the comments in the talk page. See WP:THREE. There are too many references to ask yet another reviewer to review them all to find 2-3 that demonstrate Wikipedia-notability.

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:Stefania Skrabak 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:Stefania Skrabak, 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.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Hily (app)

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:Hily (app), 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. Whispering^(t) 02:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Art of Elysium has been accepted

The Art of Elysium, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Art of Elysium Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Art of Elysium 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) 17:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hily (app) has been accepted

Hily (app), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

Primefac (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Brooklinen

Hello, E-Stylus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Brooklinen".

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! CptViraj (📧) 03:36, 29 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) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Landed (November 23)

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 does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is PR, not an encyclopedia article.

1/ The details of investments in the company is very minor content and needs to be deemphasised. 2/ notability would depend on their work. The importance of the work must be shown by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements Don't try to show it by WP:REFBOMBing with dozens of notices about individual local programs. Kepe the national sources.

3.Try to avoid saying things twice over. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Landed 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:Landed, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Landed has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Landed. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Landed has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Landed. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Amir Marashi

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 Amir Marashi, 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Amir Marashi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amir Marashi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Marashi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janette Nesheiwat (December 25)

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

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:Janette Nesheiwat 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:Janette Nesheiwat, 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.

MurielMary (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Janette Nesheiwat has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Janette Nesheiwat. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full Compliance with WP:PAID

Seasons greetings Stylus. Please note that per WP:PAID and the WMF Terms of Use, editors editing for compensation are required to maintain links to any websites on which they advertise Wikipedia editing services on their userpage. Please ensure that you add these links as soon is convenient. Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons greetings SamHolt6. I don't advertise Wikipedia editing services on any websites. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable when applying to job postings. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that you don't drift from WP:COI to WP:SPA, I'm quite willing to help some "women in red" towards "in blue", but less enthusiastic to help you with your salary.

–84.46.52.63 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for the advice. More than willing to put in the time and effort to contribute encyclopedic content both paid and unpaid. Any direction you can offer would be appreciated. E-Stylus (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

advice

(copied from Talk"The Art of Elysium):

You are a paid editor. I am not. If you are going to justify being paid to write articles, you should be writing excelelnt quality articles. I'll give an declared paid editor my help at first, because I do not like to turn anyone away, but by now you should have learned. You cannot pay me for the assistance i give, but I'm giving my free assistance so you can earn money, and you canot expect me to want to continue that sort of a situation. DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi E-Stylus! You created a thread called AfC Submission Question 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, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Janette Nesheiwat has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, saying : I disagree with the previous reviewer, MurielMary -- Nesheiwat holds an MD, and she comments on medical matters, but a medical journalist with an MD is still a journalist. Shes not apparently notable for her medical research, or her medical practice--- if she is notable for anything, it would be as a journalist.

You cannot show this by references just to her own appearances or presentations. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Janette Nesheiwat has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Janette Nesheiwat. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Landed (company) (January 10)

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:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has been resubmitted without any visible improvement. If you do not know what is needed to improve this draft, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement again, it may be Rejected, or may be nominated for deletion.

I am aware that it is very hard for paid editors to understand Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. For that reason, it is usually not a good investment by a company to hire a paid editor to write a Wikipedia article. The benefit to the company is likely less than the benefit of the same expense in improving their own web site, where the company has full freedom in what sort of language to use.

I concur with what User:DGG has written. The changes that you have made do not appear to be about to get this draft accepted, and, besides, the value of a Wikipedia article, which must be neutral, is overrated (by companies that hire paid editors, because they want a non-neutral article).

I recommend asking for advice from other experienced editors at the Teahouse, but the advice is likely to be pessimistic.

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:Landed (company) 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:Landed (company), 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Landed (company) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Landed (company). Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Landed (company) (February 29)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This article is just basically brags on their funding and investors and a sly advert about their service. The first paragraph of the founding section is basically the only thing that resembles what we'd like to see in a mainspace 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:Landed (company) 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:Landed (company), 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Landed (company) (April 21)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Landed (company) 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:Landed (company), 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing disclosures

Hello E-Stylus, can you disclose links to all off-wiki accounts you are using to obtain business to fully comply with the WP:PAID policy? Please do so before making any further edit. Thank you. GSS ^💬 10:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GSS - Per this diff, I don't advertise Wikipedia editing services on any websites. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable when applying to job postings. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter if your Upwork profile is private you still need to disclose per policies. GSS ^💬 10:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAID states in part, "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week." E-Stylus (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per this you were hired through Upwork which means you use your Upwork account for paid Wikipedia services so you need to disclose if not you'll be reported for violating the policies. @Yunshui: any thoughts? GSS ^💬 11:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and more here. GSS ^💬 11:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that you need to disclose this link as requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doc James - The written policies for WP:PAID and external advertising accounts require disclosure of active accounts at websites where editors advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. My Upwork profile is not an advertisement for paid Wikipedia-editing services as it is set to private and is only viewable when applying to job postings, similar to a resume with personally identifiable information. Per the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4, my paid contributions are disclosed on my user page and on associated talk pages. An additional disclosure of a private Upwork profile is not required by present policy as it is not an advertisement. E-Stylus (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. You are required by Wikipedia policy to provide links from your user page to your profile on any external website that you use to gain paid editing work. This is prevent the possibility of personation, and may not be circumvented. If you wish to edit Wikipedia, you will have to provide the relevant links. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RexxS - Where is the written Wikipedia policy that explicitly states, "You are required by Wikipedia policy to provide links from your user page to your profile on any external website that you use to gain paid editing work"? Your issuance of a block for "failure to provide links" based on an off-wiki email from GSS, rather than the actual WP:PAID policy was punitive. Per the external advertising accounts policy, "On-wiki accusations of 'failing to provide a link' without evidence is considered harassment and is potentially sanctionable." I have not violated WP:PAID or the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use as I do not advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services on any websites and my paid contributions are disclosed on my user page and on associated talk pages. If I was allowed at least 24 hours to respond to Doc James' statement above, this concern could have been addressed without an unwarranted block. If a formal appeal is the only option to request an unblock, please advise. E-Stylus (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure #How to disclose states:

Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.

You have not provided the required links, you have violated WP:PAID, and you're blocked until you comply.

As for your personal attack on me: my block of your account was preventative, not punitive and you need to strike that calumny.

You clearly do advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services on Upworks as evidenced by:

All of those contain the text "E-Stylus has been paid by ... Hired through Upwork", which was added by you. There is the evidence needed, so you will not be able to rely on pleading harassment.

We have an agreement with Upwork that they will close down Upwork accounts where someone falsely claims to own a Wikipedia user account: The requirement to link from your user page to the Upwork profile that you use to gain work is required to allow scrutiny of the relationship between the Wikipedia account and the Upwork account. It's not optional, and you will not be allowed to circumvent it.

You were asked to provide the links on 26 December 2019 at User talk:E-Stylus #Full Compliance with WP:PAID and on 22 April 2020 User talk:E-Stylus #Paid editing disclosures. The community has been patient enough with your stalling, and I'm not inclined to give you even more time. The block was fully warranted and nobody on this site is going to be sympathetic to any wikilawyering about the meaning of "advertising".

Now, you have three options:

Comply with WP:PAID and provide the link to your Upwork profile to allow scrutiny, and I'll unblock you;
Read WP:GAB and make an unblock request in the hope that you can convince another admin to reverse my block in the face of the above evidence;
Stop editing Wikipedia completely (because the block applies to the person not the username).

It's your choice. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response RexxS. There is no evidence that I have "active accounts at websites where [I] advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services." Submitting an application to a job posting via a private Upwork profile is not an advertisement which by definition requires a public medium to promote a service. In addition, there is no evidence that I am actively using my private Upwork profile to apply to new Wikipedia job postings.

In the RfC titled "Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation", Doc James commented on the external advertising account policy by stating in part, "What it IS saying is that if you are advertising editing services for pay you must link to that advertisement. This does not mean you need to link to any discussion you have of your WP work." This statement appears to make a distinction between advertising paid-editing and discussing Wikipedia work via a private internet medium. As the closer of this RfC, you are aware of the privacy concerns expressed due to the solicitation of personally identifiable information not protected by the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. I understand the community's concerns regarding impersonation, however there is no evidence that I have falsely claimed to own a Wikipedia user account or misrepresented my account standing in any way. I have complied with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, the Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies, and WP:PAID. In turn, I am forced to appeal. E-Stylus (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have an account on Wikipedia and you have an account with Upwork, by your own admission as the evidence I've presented shows. You can wikilawyer all you want about your understanding of "advertisement", but I've made it clear that the English Wikipedia community expects paid editors to be transparent in the connection between their Wikipedia account and their Upwork and similar accounts and the reasons for that.

As you've raised the issue, I'll quote from the close of meta:Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation:

"The issue that the proposal seeks to address is that of paid editors falsely claiming to be particular established Wikipedians, Wikipedians in good standing, or Wikipedians with certain rights and abilities."
"The proposal is therefore to require paid editors to provide a link on their Wikipedia user page to any accounts that they operate on external sites like Fiverr and Upwork."
"Nobody argued that there was no problem with paid editors making false claims on external sites. Evidence of the problem was presented and I find consensus that the issue should be dealt with if possible."
"I recommend that there be supplementary guidelines produced to ... make clear to paid editors that Wikimedia's commitment to support pseudonymous editing does not extend to disclosures made on external sites that we require paid editors to link to."

As the closer of that RfC, I found that consensus rejected any expectation that paid editors might have to pseudonymity beyond their Wikipedia accounts.

If you understand the community's concern regarding impersonation, then you understand that you have a duty to comply with the requirement to link your accounts. If one paid editor is allowed to opt-out on their own say-so, then all paid editors are similarly allowed to opt-out, and that would defeat the measures in place to counter personation. The community won't support that position as the RfC made clear.

Your assertion that you have complied with WP:PAID is false. You have been legitimately blocked to uphold our policy. Naturally you may choose to appeal against the block. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS - While your closing statement of issue does reference the operation of an Upwork account, the initial proposal by Doc James stated, "We require those involved with paid editing on Wikipedia to link on their user page to all other active accounts through which they advertise paid Wikipedia editing business." The resulting official WP:PAID policy explicitly states, "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week." Based on the policy's wording, I have complied with WP:PAID and will pursue an appeal. Thank you for your feedback. E-Stylus (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Landed (company) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Landed (company). Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Your 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 an undisclosed 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 {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future. RexxS (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For avoidance of doubt, I have blocked you specifically for "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services, per WP:PAID #How to disclose." and that reason has been recorded in the block log. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by this. If the account is private, they simply cannot link to it - you can't link to a private page that no-one can see. If they don't have a public profile, how can they be blocked for not linking to it? Does this user have a public profile that isn't being admitted to? - Bilby (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: Nobody here knows what accounts this user has on Upwork. But two things are clear: they have done paid editing on Wikipedia that they have gained from Upwork; and they have failed to link to any account on Upwork from their user page. That breaches our policy that they must link their accounts so that we can combat personation. The community's view is clear that all paid editors have to abide by these conditions and if they choose to arrange their business in such a way that it frustrates those requirements, they will not be allowed to edit here. Is there any of that confusing to you? --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What confuses me is that they have stated their profile on Upwork is not public, so there is nothing to link to. If they don't have a public profile to link to, I'm not sure how they can meet the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stated above "if they choose to arrange their business in such a way that it frustrates those requirements, they will not be allowed to edit here." That's their choice. If each paid editor is allowed to circumvent the requirement to link to their account, then the personation will go unchecked. The community has made clear that that is not an acceptable situation. --RexxS (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are much easier ways to circumvent the policy - just do what the majority of the Upwork paid editors do. I'm just curious as to how to move forward. If E-Stylus was to link to their private profile, would that meet the requirements? - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If E-Stylus can demonstrate that they have linked to all of their Upwork accounts that they used to gain the business involved in their paid Wikipedia editing, that would meet our requirements to avoid personation. --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So they need to provide a link any private accounts that they may hold. Fair enough. That would be sufficient to fully meet the policy, I assume? - Bilby (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "If E-Stylus can demonstrate that they have linked to all of their Upwork accounts that they used to gain the business involved in their paid Wikipedia editing, that would meet our requirements to avoid personation." They need to be showing that are supporting the policy, not attempting to circumvent it as they have been doing so far. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. How do they do that? - Bilby (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that this may be an impossible expectation to meet, which isn't really a way forward. - Bilby (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My job as an admin is to uphold the policies that the community has agreed. I don't have a remit to dig editors out of holes that they have dug themselves into. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, I'm just not seeing the policy the same way you are. At any rate, we'll try the linking to the profile path, and see if there is any chance of making progress there. - Bilby (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope so. I'd rather see a paid editor editing productively in line with community requirements than blocked. But I'm afraid that I'd rather see a paid editor blocked than subverting the community's expectations. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure

E-Stylus, would you be willing to set your profile to Upwork-users only and provide a link to it? I'm not seeing a viable alternative under the circumstances, and while I agree that you are not currently "advertising" if it is private, that isn't going to be enough to get unblocked. - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby - Thank you for attempting to clarify this situation. I have one Upwork account and my profile is set to private. My concern is the disclosure of personally identifiable information that is not protected by the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. When Upwork users access the direct link for a private profile, they can view the freelancer's first name, last initial, job title, photo, city, and country. In the interest of protecting my privacy, I will continue reviewing the appeals process and follow up. E-Stylus (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this situation. Unfortunately, when this was raised during the formation of this policy, the decision was that revealing this information would be the cost of engaging in paid editing. Ultimately, I do not expect that you can be unblocked without providing that link. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The block template message for undisclosed paid editing is unwarranted because my paid contributions were previously disclosed on my user page and on associated talk pages in accordance with WP:PAID and the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4. The additional block reasoning of "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services, per WP:PAID #How to disclose" is unwarranted because I have never advertised paid Wikipedia-editing on any websites nor is there any evidence to the contrary. Per my paid contribution disclosures, I have previously contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork, however my account profile is set to private which means it does not display in Upwork's freelancer marketplace or in Google search results. It is only viewable when applying to a job posting. Submitting a proposal to a job posting via a private internet medium does not constitute an advertisement which by definition requires a public medium to promote a product or service.

WP:PAID states in part, "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week." In turn, my Wikipedia account is in compliance with WP:PAID as I do not advertise paid Wikipedia-editing on any websites. My operation of an Upwork account is not exclusive to Wikipedia work. I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 (1, 2).

On 12/28/2019, I responded to an external advertising account inquiry from SamHolt6. After I communicated that my Upwork profile was set to private, there was no response from SamHolt6. On 4/22/2020, I responded to an external advertising account inquiry from GSS. After I cited the relevant WP:PAID policy, GSS contacted administrator Yunshui for "any thoughts". There was no response from Yunshui. On 4/23/2020, administrator Doc James, the initial proposer of the external advertising account policy, advised that I "need[ed] to disclose the link as requested", however the official WP:PAID policy was not addressed. Less than 24 hours later, my account was blocked by administrator RexxS, the closer for the external advertising account RfC. RexxS received a related email from GSS that appears to constitute off-wiki block shopping as there was no report to an on-wiki noticeboard for peer review.

On 4/24/2020, administrator Yunshui proposed amending the wording of the external advertising account policy. If this cross-project policy is not sufficiently clear, my account should not have been blocked prior to a community discussion on potential policy revisions. In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 states in part, "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." As of 4/23/2020, the date of my account's block, the external advertising account policy was not listed on the alternative disclosure policies page.

While I understand the community's concerns regarding impersonation on external websites, I have never falsely claimed to own a Wikipedia user account or misrepresented my account standing. A policy that allows administrators to block editors without reviewable evidence leaves considerable room for misuse and abuse of power, specifically if the only current resolution is the disclosure of personally identifiable information. In the RfC for the external advertising account policy, Doc James, the initial proposer stated, "The proposal is not to have accounts here on Wikipedia blocked or banned. The proposal is only to help with removing dishonest advertisements that exist elsewhere." If this is the purpose, there is a potential alternative that would satisfy the community's aim and protect the privacy of compliant paid editors. If an Upwork freelancer disclosed an Upwork assigned contract ID for a completed or existing Wikipedia job, Upwork could review their site's corresponding account profile and confirm with Wikipedia that the editor has not violated either website's Terms of Use. I would be willing to provide a contract ID provided Upwork does not disclose my personally identifiable information and I am copied on all related correspondence between Upwork and Wikipedia. E-Stylus (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below (chronological order) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 1 May 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.

Note to reviewing admin: I contacted RexxS for a different purpose and blocking this user was his own decision which is absolutely right imo. We have not seen the Upwork profile connected to this user so, we can't just believe what he's claiming is true. What we have with us is evidence that he uses that profile to obtain paid-Wikipedia services. GSS ^💬 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tough. Hi E-Stylus, I think it all boils down to the following question: Now that the policy has been explicitly changed to what seems to have been the community's intention all the time, do you agree to adhere to it by providing the requested link on your user page as soon as you are unblocked? Do you agree to do so without obscuring it, e.g. by not putting it inside a "collapse" box? If so, please also provide the link below, in response to this question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree - Thank you for your review. The external advertising account policy is a cross-project policy. In turn, can the policy be expanded outside the scope of advertising without a discussion that meets the requirements for broad community approval? The proposed policy amendment received 3 votes and 1 comment. On 4/30/2020, the day after my appeal, the discussion was closed and implemented by administrator Yunshui, the initial proposer of the amendment.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 states in part, "An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." As neither the original or revised version of the external advertising account policy is currently listed on the alternative disclosure policy page, how is it justifiable for my Wikipedia account to be blocked? In good faith, I am willing to provide an Upwork assigned contract ID for a completed Wikipedia job if Upwork does not disclose my personally identifiable information and I am copied on all related correspondence between Upwork and Wikipedia. The contract ID will enable Upwork to review my corresponding account profile and confirm with Wikipedia that I have not violated either website's Terms of Use. E-Stylus (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E-Stylus, thanks for the explanation.

Please note that Wikilawyering may not be the best way to approach the situation, and is often seen as a way of "gaming the system" on Wikipedia. However, even if we take the policy and TOU by the word:

Local policies like WP:PAID, and local guidelines like WP:COI, do not need to "supersede" the Terms of Use. You need to adhere to both the TOU and the community's policies; the simple reason is that the community's elected administrators (WP:BLOCK), or even the community itself (WP:CBAN) can show you the door if you don't adhere to its norms. The existence of the Terms of Service, and your obligation to adhere to them, does not affect your obligation to adhere to WP:PAID. Communities like Wikimedia Commons have chosen to opt out of the "Paid contributions without disclosure" part of the TOU, and the ability for them to do so is the "supersession" described there. Taking it as a reason to ignore WP:PAID is a misinterpretation.
Global community policies that introduce a requirement on all wikis should be interpreted as a lower limit, not an upper limit to local policy requirements. If a community decides to increase the requirements locally, this does not conflict with a global policy that was only meant to introduce an requirement, not to reduce the amount of requirements.
Please have a look at section 10, "Management of Websites", of the Terms of Use: "The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition."
The blocking policy, section "Unblock requests", offers the following guidance: "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended." As you refuse to provide the requested link, we can not come to an agreement here, so that seems to be your only option. Please note that, per the banning policy, section "Community bans and restrictions", "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'."

If you would like to appeal to the community, please create a new unblock appeal that begins with the text "Please copy this request to WP:AN on my behalf". You are allowed to copy your old request, but I do not recommend doing so, since you won't be arguing with lawyers but with a community of volunteer encyclopedia editors.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree - As of 4/29/2020, the date of my block appeal, my Wikipedia account was in compliance with the community's WP:PAID policy. On 4/30/2020, the policy was amended and retroactively applied. The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 states in part,

"These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page."

My understanding of this wording is that if a Project community implements a paid contribution policy that requires more detailed disclosure than the TOU requirements, the policy must be listed on the alternative disclosure policies page to supersede the TOU. I am not attempting to game the system, but rather asking for fair and objective consideration relative to the TOU and community policies. E-Stylus (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E-Stylus, thank you very much for highlighting the discussed part. I can understand the disagreement, but I'll insist that "superseding" the Terms of Use is not necessary at all for WP:PAID to be enforceable. Yes, the TOU say that "community (...) policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This just confirms our point. However, because WP:PAID is not listed as an "alternative" policy, you do not have a choice between them. You have to adhere to both. The section requiring you to do so is section 10, not section 4. The quoted part of section 4 just confirms that it does not contradict section 10. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: My take on the issue is this:

Many paid editors (PEs) operate an account on Upwork. That contains a "profile" which is used to advertise them to prospective employers. It is expected that prospective employers see that profile before deciding to employ the PE.

E-Stylus operate an account on Upwork. That contains a "profile". E-Stylus has chosen to use software settings to hide that profile, although prospective employers are allowed to see it. E-Stylus contends that is not advertising, but my counter-argument is this:

If I were to create a website that only certain people were allowed to read, on my invitation, and I placed an advertisement on the website, would it be any less of an advertisement? Of course not.

In a non-tech example, if I were to place an advertisement inside the entrance hall to my house, it could only be seen by those that I chose to invite into my house. Would it then not be an advertisement? Of course not.

So it is for E-Stylus' profile. That would be the advert to which they are required to link if it were visible. Choosing to use software to hide that advert from all except those they choose does not stop it being the advert that they are required to link. Their decision to make use of the "private setting" deliberately subverts our agreed policy as agreed by the cross-project RfC at meta:Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation.

If every PE were allowed to opt-out of the requirement to link on their own say-so, then the agreed policy would be completely frustrated. That was never the intent of the community, as shown in the RfC, and I am determined to uphold our policy in order to eliminate impersonation. Thank you for your support. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree - Thank you for your response. If the 4/30/2020 version of WP:PAID is a strengthening of the TOU's paid disclosure requirements, would this not constitute an alternative to the TOU requirements? The alternative paid contribution disclosure polices page states,

"Disclosure of paid contributions to any of the Wikimedia projects is a requirement under the disclosure provision of the Terms of use. Nonetheless, individual projects may create an alternative disclosure policy when their projects or communities have particular needs to either strengthen or reduce the requirements. The provision gives communities discretion to adjust the rules for their specific community after following the project's standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies. Adopting an alternative disclosure policy requires consensus, consistent with the project’s past practice and local understanding of what consensus is. After creating such a policy, projects must include their policy here. This list will help editors and sister projects to quickly discover what the local project policy for paid editing is, or if the default applies."

My understanding of this wording is that the expansion of WP:PAID beyond the scope of external advertising accounts would require community consensus that meets the standard of participation for changes to policies.

Hi RexxS - My Upwork account profile is not set to private to "deliberately subvert" Wikipedia's external advertising account policy. My profile was private before I contracted a Wikipedia job. I have privacy concerns regarding the disclosure of my personally identifiable information on Upwork and Wikipedia. This is why I suggested the use of an Upwork assigned contract ID to confirm my account compliance. We can agree to disagree on the definition of advertising. E-Stylus (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal has been declined; if you would like to challenge this decision, please create an appeal for WP:AN. Please do not use this talk page to endlessly repeat the same arguments over and over again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please copy this request to WP:AN on my behalf.

Hi - I am seeking your input regarding my unblock request. My account was blocked for "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services". Per my paid contribution disclosures, I have previously contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork, however I have never advertised paid Wikipedia-editing services nor is there any evidence to the contrary. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable by prospective clients when submitting a proposal to a job posting. I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 (1, 2) and I have never misrepresented my Wikipedia account.

After my account's block, the WP:PAID policy was expanded to require link disclosure for external accounts outside the scope of advertising. The amended policy was implemented by the proposer with 3 votes and 1 comment. It was then retroactively unfairly applied to support the blockage of my account. As the amended policy now requires disclosure of personally identifiable information that is not already public, I am asking that the community review this policy change with a standard of participation that meets the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Also, I am asking that the resulting PAID policy be added to the Wikimedia Foundation's alternative disclosure page with the other local community policies that "strengthen or reduce" the paid disclosure requirements of the Terms of Use. While these procedures may not remedy the questionable blocking of my account, they would at least offer wider consideration and documentation in line with community policies and the Terms of Use. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your appeal is denied by the community. See AN discussion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:40, 14 May 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.

I have copied it over. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot - Thank you for copying the request. I have made every effort to contribute compliant disclosed paid edits. In addition, approximately 50% of my edits are volunteer contributions. I am just opposed to disclosing my non-public personally identifiable information, especially when it is not protected by the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. E-Stylus (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely free to choose not to disclose personally identifiable information regarding the Upwork account through which you conduct your paid editing activity. But, as the developing consensus appears to be confirming, that means you are not compliant with policy and you will not be allowed to engage in paid editing here. So it's either make the full disclosures required by Wikipedia policy, or don't do any paid editing. That choice is entirely yours, but Wikipedia has no obligation to facilitate paid editing on terms favourable to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Bilby - Thank you for considering both sides. E-Stylus (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby - Just inquiring as to any steps forward to resume contributing to Wikipedia. I no longer contract work via Upwork, and all my paid contributions were disclosed prior to the blocking of my account (1, 2, 3). E-Stylus (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby - Would you be willing to offer any advice on seeking reinstatement of my account? I have read WP:UNBAN, but any insight based on past experience would be appreciated. E-Stylus (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stefania Skrabak

Hello, E-Stylus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stefania Skrabak".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Landed (company)

Hello, E-Stylus. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Landed (company), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Janette Nesheiwat

Hello, E-Stylus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Janette Nesheiwat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Would a Wikipedia editor be willing to copy the below appeal to the appropriate discussion board?

On April 23, 2020, my Wikipedia account was indefinitely blocked for “Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services, per WP:PAID #How to disclose.” Per my preexisting paid contribution disclosures, I contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork between October 2018 and September 2019. However, due to privacy concerns, my Upwork profile - including nonpublic personal information such as my name, photograph, gender, racial origin, and geographic location - was set to private since the opening of the associated account, and it was only visible to potential clients when applying for a job. After submitting an unblock request on my Wikipedia talk page on April 29, 2020, the WP:PAID #How to disclose policy was amended - beyond the scope of advertising paid Wikipedia-editing services - on April 30, 2020.

As I am no longer utilizing the Upwork platform to contract work (Wikipedia-related or non-Wikipedia), I am seeking reconsideration of my account’s blocking and subsequent site ban. The ban was imposed on May 14, 2020 after an AN discussion among 11 Wikipedia editors. If allowed to rejoin the Wikipedia community, I will continue making every effort to contribute compliant edits that effectively inform readers. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined because of WP:SNOWBALL. This is essentially the same request that was previously discussed and declined. If instead you were planning on not engaging in any further paid editing, that would be a different situation and may be worth bringing to the community for discussion. Yamla (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2021 (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.

@Yamla: Thank you for your response. I understand that the WP:PAID policy amendment now applies. Per WP:UNBAN, I am asking that the community reconsider my account's site ban because I no longer utilize the Upwork platform to contract work (Wikipedia-related or non-Wikipedia). I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 (22 months), and all my paid contributions were disclosed prior to my account's blocking in April 2020. If reinstated, I will continue to comply with Wikipedia's TOS and community policies. E-Stylus (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same as saying you'll avoid any further paid editing. And frankly, the community consensus appears to be that the WP:PAID policy didn't change but was simply clarified. I'm aware you hold a different position, and I may be mistaken that this is the general position of the community. I consider this the end of our discussion, though of course you are welcome to attempt to convince another admin to take your request (or a modified version of your request) to the noticeboard. I'm just a single voice here. --Yamla (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac: Would you be willing to offer any advice on the above? E-Stylus (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAID

Isaacl and ProcrastinatingReader: Just a FYI that the current wording of the WP:PAID policy, Disclosing external accounts on Wikipedia, does not reflect the associated Meta cross-project policy regarding linking to external advertising accounts. The English Wikipedia policy was amended from the Meta policy based on a discussion among 5 editors. E-Stylus (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I think the purpose of the discussion was to clarify how English Wikipedia interprets the policy. It having a banner saying "This section describes a requirement to disclose external accounts that was passed on Meta-Wiki and applies to all Wikipedia language versions." seems accurate to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Thank you for your response. In your opinion, does a discussion among 5 editors meet the WP:CONLEVEL standard of participation to constitute the Meta-Wiki policy interpretation of the English Wikipedia community as a whole? E-Stylus (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vecna Robotics Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vecna Robotics 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. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]