User talk:MediaWatch

Hi. When you recently edited Annie Chikhwaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for alerting me to this, I have fixed this now.

[] Emmanuel Smithers (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! : )

Hello, I'm

]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi MediaWatch! 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.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:11, Wednesday, April 6, 2016 (

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wendy Alec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NRB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MediaWatch. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MediaWatch. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MediaWatch. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Praxidicae (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Cole (broadcaster), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cole (broadcaster) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmartSE. Thank you for this information which is a good reminder of Wiki policies. I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 10 years now and have never been paid for my contributions. I do this as a hobby and for lifetime learning purposes. ie.to learn how to be a better writer from fellow editors. I have been dormant for some time, but would like to get back into mastering a different writing style to journalism / PR. Once I have confidence I may start accepting paid work and will of course adhere to the policies you have outlined.

Hello SmartSE. Thank you for this information which is a good reminder of Wiki policies. I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 10 years now and have never been paid for my contributions. I do this as a hobby and for lifetime learning purposes. ie.to learn how to be a better writer from fellow editors. I have been dormant for some time, but would like to get back into mastering a different writing style to journalism / PR. Once I have confidence I may start accepting paid work and will of course adhere to the policies you have outlined.

Hello MediaWatch. 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:MediaWatch. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MediaWatch|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. SmartSE (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmartSE. Thank you for this information which is a good reminder of Wiki policies. I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 10 years now and have never been paid for my contributions. I do this as a hobby and for lifetime learning purposes. ie.to learn how to be a better writer from fellow editors. I have been dormant for some time, but would like to get back into mastering a different writing style to journalism / PR. Once I have confidence I may start accepting paid work and will of course adhere to the policies you have outlined. MediaWatch 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s doubtful that an account creates two promotional articles out of the blue after more than two years of inactivity. You created the article Rune Sovndahl with an edit summary that reads “I created this page as I was fascinated by the success of this London entrepreneur and the amount of publicity he was receiving in the media”, which is unlikely as none of the sources and media coverages are recent. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 16:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the second one because the first one was flagged as being an orphan MediaWatch 22:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fantastic Services. Thank you. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 16:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one Wikipedia account and have had it for over 10 years. MediaWatch 22:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fantastic Services 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/Fantastic Services (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Girth Summit _(blether) 18:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for

Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{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.

David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to request my account to be unblocked. I have been a Wikipedia contributor for about 12 years using this one and only account. I have never been paid for any of my writing/ editing here so I was shocked to be blocked indefinitely some weeks ago. However I fully understand the reasons and concerns as to why this happened. I have also learnt so much from this process and the research that it has initiated. Of course I now realise I have a lot to learn when it comes to writing articles that summarise accepted knowledge and neutrality. I completely get the need for reliable sources and thought I did my best to cite good sources, however I see now interview articles even from a reputable State broadcaster are not always acceptable. I confirm I have read and understand the Terms of Use and Paid Editing Disclosure requirements. I realise now that it looks very much like there is a COI here and I should have followed the right steps to avoid this. ie I attempted to resurrect articles that had already been deleted which was stupid. Instead of just going ahead and publishing them I should have followed Wikipedia's collaborative procedures and presented them as 'Articles for Creation'. I promise to do that in future. My motivation is to be a better writer that doesn't write material that comes across as promotional or advertising in any way. Please give me another chance to learn. Once I have developed these skills I could possibly explore becoming a paid editor in future although that is unlikely now. I need to reestablish my confidence as a voluntary contributor primarily. Should I have the opportunity to do any paid for writing in future, I would fully acknowledge any potential employer on my Talk Page as per the Wiki protocol to safeguard public confidence. I would also only propose changes on talk pages so they can be peer reviewed first. And I would not review any article personally where I have stated paid advocacy. In future, now that I have a better understanding I intend to make a positive contribution in keeping with the framework of encyclopaedic content Wikipedia upholds. My apologies for my lack of experience and sincere promise that I will work within the rules, should I be unblocked.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but after reviewing your recent contributions, then to be frank, I do not believe what you are saying here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:21, 28 May 2023 (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.