User talk:MothHoles

It is disappointing and bizarre that within 18 seconds my article was declined without reading it.

• All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See
  WP:RS). There is no reason to more than scan the article as the sources are all primary, promotional or unreliable. KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia for notable topics and does not care about other subject SEO concerns or that they wish "to be known and or credited". I doubt someone would find
  WP:DISCLOSE if required. If sources exist to show this author is notable by Wikipedia policies then William Hampson could be turned into a disambiguation page that links to William Hampson (author) and William Hampson (engineer). KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is some serious attitude, from behind your keyboard. There is no conflict of interest as I represent Mr Hampson (present day). We have been inundated from one social media account (276k followers) with these search engine results that show this article, including a photograph of a grey haired, bearded man [William Hampson]. We have been inundated with private social media messages including from two venues who are holding signings this month. A national charity who are in the process of marketing his book with the aim of generating charitable revenue. Therefore your 'opinions' are of no interest and are completely unfounded when my inbox is already raising concern over Mr Hampson's reputation. Mr Hampson has expressed to me he does not care much for Wikipedia as he finds it an unrecognised source and is often the source of ridicule within todays society. However, this poses a serious concern and one of commercial interest that has the ability to impact sales when his book is searched and a grey haired old man appears in an image that is clearly of a specific era and not the present day.

I will delve a little further to raise this with wiki direct, although we have tagged wiki in all the postings on social media and have been very clear how this fails to serve either legacy. The only decent suggestion from your rather surly response was adding 'engineer' to Mr Hampson.s page as him being catagoried as 'Author' on the search engine results has the engineer being identified as the author of the present day work. MothHoles (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How else do people converse here apart from on a keyboard... just like you are? If you "represent Mr Hampson (present day)" then by Wikipedias polices then you do have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and must disclose. If google is showing a confusing Knowledge Panel that is an issue you should bring up with google (as others have done) not here - Wikipedia has no control on what google does - sorry but I have no link for where you would go for that. Also the Wikipedia article for William Hampson does not mention and is not categorised author go again that is a google issue not a Wikipedia one. KylieTastic (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs

independent, reliable

sources

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Hampson (Author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

>>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MothHoles! Having an article draft 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! >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Hampson (Author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KylieTastic (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. stwalkerster (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2022 (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🌈 19:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]