User talk:HeddaLettis

Hi HeddaLettis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, HeddaLettis. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this reversion that you made without discussion in the article's Talk page or even an edit summary. Why do readers need to know that a student streaked across the campus in 1974? ElKevbo (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC) I reverted both your deletion and my addition, just minutes before. It is now back to what it was before either of us messed with it. You can do whatever the fuck you want with it now: delete the original version or whatever, Professor.[reply]

On 2 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Larry Josephson, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HeddaLettis. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:HeddaLettis. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=HeddaLettis|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not paid nor have I ever been paid for any edits. I have access to Newspapers.com and am trying to add material I can from reliable sources: newspapers. If you don't want me to make any further edits, please block me and save me from spending hours on unpaid work, and I will be very grateful. I feel quite annoyed. You can see I am editing articles on all kinds of topics. Biographical topics seem to lend themselves to newspaper articles but you can see that I have worked on topics where no one could possibly pay me. There are some writers -- for example, Elaine Kraf, who was the subject of a recent article in The New Yorker which noted that there was almost nothing to her Wikipedia entry. As a person who is fairly elderly, I detect a bias toward recency that tends to shortchange events and places and people who were quite popular or newsworthy in decades of my life when I was reading newspapers but who may not be known to people, say, under 40 or so. If you want Wikipedia not to use Newspapers.com, then Wikipedia shouldn't have an arrangement with Newspapers.com and you can use only Web-based citations. It is very frustrating to spend hours -- I should be asleep now -- on a topic that interests me and then have do deal with this. I am disgusted with Wikipedia now. HeddaLettis (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know that people were paid for this shit!!!! HeddaLettis (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I'm no spring chicken, either. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, with all the assets and setbacks that entails. There's no problem with the sources you're using, nor with adding much needed content. I understand your annoyance, but it is no less annoying for other editors to do clean-up work later. At the Budd article--which has recently been a focus of persistent promotional editing by conflict of interest accounts--you've added several sources that don't support the content. You've overloaded a number of bios with critics' blurbs. We're not Playbill, but an encyclopedia, and unless we're dealing with Hemingway or Kahlo, about whom there are numerous critical assessments more valuable than newspaper reviews, one or two critical assessments are sufficient. Rather than be disgusted, please take the time to rethink some of the contributions, ask for assistance if necessary, and continue. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. Why don't you go through everything I've edited and remove all the material you don't think is relevant? I would like you to spend as much time as you want on it. At this point, I'm not going to waste my time with Wikipedia. HeddaLettis (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To start, I suggest that you go through all my additions to the articles on dead people like Elaine Kraf, Duncan Hannah, Bruce Jay Friedman, Kenward Elmslie, Totie Fields, Pinky Lee, Judith Ortiz Cofer and Larry Josephson and remove irrelevant citations I have added. I would be much appreciative if you would spend at least 10-20 hours on this and your deletions would show me the error of my ways. Thank you. I look forward to your help. HeddaLettis (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Julie Budd article bothers you, go to the article on her manager Herb Bernstein. After doing research on her, I see Bernstein is mentioned in lots of the articles. Then I see his Wikipedia page and it's got a couple of sources. I look on Newspapers.com for articles about Herb Bernstein and the only ones I find are really articles about Julie Budd that mention him. There are lots of Wikipedia articles like that with a paucity of sources that sound as if they are written by PR agents. If that's what you think my additions are, then maybe nobody needs me to do any editing and I can do other things that are more valuable that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. I am sorry to have bothered you so much. HeddaLettis (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need a better username. HeddaLettis (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had an actual name instead of that long string of numbers, I could visualize you as a human being. Seriously. You may want to think about it. It is hard to get so upset when a person with a recognizable human name, whatever the language, than it is with a string of numbers. HeddaLettis (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read out guidelines. IP editors are free to choose anonymity for any reason. And your invitation that other editors spend 'at least 10-20 hours' cleaning up after you doesn't work. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up this: Fuck you. HeddaLettis (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:HeddaLettis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators:

IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, HeddaLettis. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HeddaLettis. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]