User talk:SarahWoodstock

June 2013[edit]

Hello, SarahWoodstock. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Hilary Rowland, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Drm310 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SarahWoodstock, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi SarahWoodstock! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Urbanette Magazine[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Urbanette Magazine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://urbanette.com/first-online-magazine-history/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Praxidicae (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hilary Rowland[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hilary Rowland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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) 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Hilary Rowland, you may be blocked from editing. Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hilary Rowland[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hilary Rowland, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Rowland[edit]

Do not recreate the article. If you want to challenge its deletion, you should go to WP:DRV.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, SarahWoodstock. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Online magazine, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop editing any articles related to Hilary Rowland. If you want material added to an article, you must use the Talk page of the article you want to edit and propose the precise material you want added. At the same time, you must disclose your WP:COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, SarahWoodstock. 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 DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing[edit]

Hello SarahWoodstock. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Urbanette, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:SarahWoodstock. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=SarahWoodstock|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. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I absolutely am not paid to do anything on Wikipedia. This block is unfair. SarahWoodstock (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 4 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for a reason that is not valid. I am not paid to do Wikipedia editing. I added Urbanette because I felt that, as the first ever online magazine, it was notable enough to be in Wikipedia, and I disclosed my conflict of interest publicly, which is that I have written for Urbanette, unpaid.

Decline reason:

As per below. Yamla (talk) 14:06, 24 December 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 are not blocked specifically for paid editing. You are blocked for this being an advertising-only account. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you declared a conflict of interest regarding Urbanette- I would also ask what your conflict of interest is regarding Hillary Rowland. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My conflict is just that I know her and in the past I've had my articles published on Urbanette (unpaid). I tried to add another disclosure about this but it seems I'm blocked from that too now.

I'm sorry if I'm dense, but I don't understand how this is considered advertising any more than it is when anyone adds or edits a page for any other notable entrepreneur or company that they know about. Hilary Rowland is objectively notable, and so is the magazine. Doesn't that make it valuable to have on Wikipedia? Please help me understand. I've read all the pages about this and I still think both should be able to be on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your time!

The difference is that you don't just know about these subjects, but have a conflict of interest. Looking at the Urbanette draft, interviews with Hillary Rowland are not acceptable as sources, as they are not independent of the subject. The magazine's assessment of its own history is also not acceptable; Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say. Are there any other subjects that you want to write about that are unrelated to Urbanette? 331dot (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for Urbanette, I gave many legitimate references from top newspapers and very significant publications, many of which were not interviews, and all of which stated by the author that it was the first online magazine. Can you please let me know what else would be needed in this case?

As for writing about other things, yes, I would like to add things I learn, but I felt I should start with things that I'm an expert in. Just seemed like a logical place to start. I want to learn and do things correctly, and I've been asking for advice. Not sure how else to get involved, especially since I got blocked when I've clearly been trying to get help to do things correctly.

NB, The re-creation of the Hilary page was an accident, as someone deleted it while I was simultaneously editing and saving a section of it, and that accidentally recreated it. Thanks again for the advice! SarahWoodstock (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose we could consider unblocking with a topic ban on Elite Model Management ‎ and Hilary Rowland and if user can describe what constructive, non promotional, non coi edits would be made. As always, any other admin can act as they deem appropriate without further discussion with me.-- Deep fried okra 17:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I don't have any say here but I would oppose any unblock of this user. In conversations in their deleted contribs, they've indicated (in my opinion) that they have no intention of editing outside of the area that they have a clear WP:COI in and their creation of the Hilary Rowland article was deceitful, whether intentional or not, as it was chock full of unsourced content, blatant churnalism and the like. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]