User talk:Marie610

This is Marie610's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Marie610. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Marie610! You created a thread called Article not approved at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.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, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

April 2020[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Removing the warnings and editing around them is unacceptable and now you are edit warring, so consider this a last and final warning for both your warring and coi/paid editing. Praxidicae (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the edits and creation made with the page Nova Wav I will go back and make further changes to fit the warnings. I did not receive undisclosed paid editing. I am perfecting my editing skills on Wikipedia and created the page out of courtesy. I will adjust the article to fit the warnings, but the warning of paid editing needs to be removed as it is a false allegation. Marie610 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain how you became the copyright holder of several images you've uploaded. Praxidicae (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were sent to me directly from the photographer giving privilege to the upload them on Wikipedia. I selected the I do not own these images option when uploading, and even gave the photographer the credit for the image. Again, I'm unsure why it would stated that I am the copyright holder and how that is connected to your false allegation of undisclosed paid editing. Marie610 (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with uploading someone else's images with permission is that a copyright holder can't say "this may only be used on Wikipedia" - unless it's a non-free image being used under fair use (and fair use isn't permitted on Wikimedia Commons), the copyright holder has to release them under a suitable free license, which in turn means that they are giving anyone permission to do anything with the image, subject only to a very small list of restrictions (requiring any other uses to have a similar license and giving credit to the original author, usually). If the copyright holder actually is okay with that, then they need to follow the procedures for donating copyrighted materials, and that is not something you are able to do since you do not hold the copyright. creffett (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so clarifying as I was unaware of the difference. Marie610 (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you had contact with the photographer yet have no connection to the subjects whose images you uploaded. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email Commons:OTRS to explain the details of my connect to have access to the use of the photo. At this point this is becoming WP:HOUND as you continue to follow my edits, and request for deletion of my pages. Your harassment has fallen under the characteristics listed in WP:TEND causing distress. I edit Wikipedia pages for fun and to explained my knowledge, so consider this a last and final warning as for your WP:HOUND is a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Marie610 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following you around, I came across the article I nominated while doing my normal NPP patrols and didn't even notice you were the creator. But feel free to go substantiate your absurd claims and explain to the rest of editors here what your actual connection is at WP:ANI. Praxidicae (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of JaGurl TV for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JaGurl TV 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/JaGurl TV 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. Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

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. – bradv🍁 22:39, 21 April 2020 (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).

Marie610 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I confirm that I have read the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements. I am not being compensated for any of my edits. I promise that I am simply editing and creating pages. I am very connected in many news industries so I notice the mention of people and publications on pages that have not been created, and I create them. I have never been paid to create a Wikipedia page or edit a Wikipedia page. This is a platform to create pages, and thats all I did. Because I have writing experience with news publications does not mean I am being paid. I have never been paid to create Wikipedia pages. I feel like I'm being targeted and I'm not sure why. I been editing and creating pages for months, and now I'm being falsely accused of getting paid to do something that I volunteer my time to do. In the future I plan to use Google as a reference source when editing topics in the future. This is a HUGE misunderstanding. I appreciate Wikipedia and everything this platform stands for as a non-profit. I purely do this for learning and growing as a Wikipedia creator.

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 22 April 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.

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).

Marie610 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I am being blocked because I was accused of being paid and paid editing goes against Terms of Use in which I have read. I was not paid to edit or create any wikipedia page. I understand that I must not make continues edits on a page because it comes off as I am editing for someone. I will not continue to cause damage or disruption. I would like to request to be unblocked Marie610 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been using two sockpuppets or meatpuppets (checkuser confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marie610) to evade your block and disrupt the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JaGurl_TV. You will not be unblocked any time soon; the WP:Standard offer is the closest you can get to ever returning to this community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:40, 24 April 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.

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).

Marie610 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, I will be honest and admit that I created the one account Chuck99999, but that is the only account I created. I created that account to back up my argument because my page was blocked and I couldn't comment. Was I wrong, of course I was, and I have to sit things out for 6 months because of it. But that is the only account I create. Marie610 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical decline, duplicated below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 25 April 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.

utrs 30223[edit]

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

Marie610 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #30223 was submitted on 2020-04-22 00:52:56. This review is now closed.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False Claims of Paid Advertisement[edit]

I have been falsely claimed for WP:UPE. I am disputing the claims. I have never been paid for editing and I am fighting my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie610 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the nature of your relationship with the subjects of the following articles:

Remember that what constitutes a paid relationship can be complicated, and doesn't just apply if you have a signed contract. If you work for any of these people, or for an organization which represents them, or if you would benefit materially in any way by them having an article, you still need to disclose. – bradv🍁 20:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have relationship to any of them. I didn't know you have to have a relationship with people to create pages. Those are all music producers who are in the music industry who have all been referenced on a-list celebrity pages for the musical work they do, but they just didn't have Wikipedia pages. They all are notable, so I practiced my page making abilities on Wikipedia with making their pages. Same thing with the page Masika Kalysha, I don't know her, but I made her page. So, I do my research and created the pages. Do I need to have a relationships with them to create their page? I edit a lot of pages too, do I need to know people to edit their pages? I just want to know why I'm being accused of getting paid when I honestly don't know those people. Was it something I did wrong? Was I being to much of a perfectionist with the pages and making too many edits? Marie610 17:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are supposed to not have a relationship with the people you write about. If you do, you must disclose it.

One more question: What is your relationship to the user Jagurltv? – bradv🍁 21:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, when I made the page J Beatzz I found the article that JaGurl TV wrote on him, and realized the outlet had a lot of news content. So over the time I started using many sources from that outlet as a news source for my references on pages, in addition to other sites. Then I noticed that the outlet had some articles about the owner and I did my research on other news pages and saw that the page JaGurl TV had been referenced and had enough resources to have it's own Wikipedia, so I created one. Again, I honestly don't know anyone from the outlet or the owner. Marie610 17:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deleted version of that article, written by Jagurltv for a "client", which uses the exact same phrasing. I don't understand where you got that content without knowing the author of that draft. I also don't understand how you can say you have no relationship with these people, when you said above that images used in these articles were sent to you directly by the photographer. This just doesn't add up. – bradv🍁 22:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything about that. I just so happen to know the photographer, its a small world in the journalism industry. But it's ok, this was fun while it lasted. Thank you for your feedback, and thank you Wikipedia for allowing me to edit for free to notable pages. This was fun and a great experience. Oh yeah, I don't even know who Chuck99999 is lol! Thats actually really funny lmao.

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marie610. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ST47 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2020 (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).

Marie610 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

LOL, I have no idea who Chuck99999 is lol. I saw the comment they left on the deletion page for the page I created, lol. I only have one computer and it's blocked from making edits. Don't know who that account belongs to. Looks like someone is trying to set me up if you ask me...Marie610 (talk

Decline reason:

The new block is based on technical evidence; simple denial is insufficient to appeal it. Again, you will not be unblocked any time soon; the WP:Standard offer is the closest you can get to ever returning to this community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 25 April 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.

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).

Marie610 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, I will be honest and admit that I created the one account Chuck99999, but that is the only account I created. I created that account to back up my argument because my page was blocked and I couldn't comment. Was I wrong, of course I was, and I have to sit things out for 6 months because of it. But that is the only account I create. Marie610 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you say you are going to go with the Standard Offer, you don't need to make your unblock request now. Please make a new unblock request when the Standard Offer period has expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:25, 25 April 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.

Draft:Fly Guy DC concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Fly Guy DC, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until Next Time[edit]

According to the WP:Standard offer I have to wait 6 months, and I will do that. My apologies for any misunderstandings that may have occurred. I just wanted to be heard, I felt that many user accounts were ganging up on me to have me deleted with NO evidence. First with the false allegations of being paid, and then being blocked. I will take this time away to reflect, and come back in 6 months with a better attitude about the entire situation. And as far as the pages I created, I did them all for free and I don't know any of them. This was such a learning experience and I thank God that it happened. Now I know what not to do, and how to move moving forward with my page creations and edits. Thank you all for your time, and I'll try again in the next few months. Marie610 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Fly Guy DC[edit]

Hello, Marie610. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fly Guy DC".

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! Lapablo (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]