User talk:Aiaaua1

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Aiaaua1 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Welcome![edit]

Hi Aiaaua1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Aiaaua1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Tatiana Stupak, 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, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} 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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please respond to this message before editing further. We need to understand what your relationship is with Ms Stupak, and any COI needs to be properly disclosed. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have only just seen your message, after doing what I hope are close to final updates a few minutes ago. I have an occasional business relationship with Tatiana Stupak's partner. Several weeks weeks ago, I was asked if I could help to develop an article for her, following earlier rejection of an article by another developer. She told me that it had not been notable enough and without enough good independent references to be accepted. She gave me a printout of the rejected article. I agreed to try, basing it largely on her mountaineering exploits, rather than on her career as a piano teacher, music school owner and pianist. I met Tatiana Stupak for several hours over the last several weeks to try to understand her requirements. She told me that a friend of hers, David Pentecost, had helped her with her English (not her native language), by editing her book and he had also gathered together copies of her awards, certificates and newspaper cuttings to produce two books of these for her. I used these two books for some citations, but not so much the book about her world record. I hope this helps with your question. Aiaaua1 (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case, you clearly have a conflict of interest (COI), which must be formally disclosed. See the third bullet point above for instructions.

If you are being paid or otherwise rewarded for your editing, you also have a more specific type of COI, which is governed by our paid-editing rules, see WP:PAID. In that case, you should declare paid-editing rather than general COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not being paid. I am unsure exactly what to put and where. Would appreciate your advice please.

Does the template go above == Welcome! == at the top of the Talk page?

I think that what I need to insert there is as follows:

{{Connected contributor|User1=Aiaaua1 |U1-declared=yes Acquaintance of the partner of the subject of the article.}}

Does that seem OK?

~~~~ Aiaaua1 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have now added my COI template at the very top of the Talk page. I hope this in is the correct position. Looking forward to hearing what is the next step towards getting the article made public. Thank you. Aiaaua1 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have only just seen your message, after doing what I hope are final updates a few minutes ago. I have an occasional business relationship with Tatiana Stupak's partner. Several weeks weeks ago, I was asked if I could help her to develop an article for her, following earlier rejection of an article by another developer. I agreed to try, and I met Tatiana Stupak for several hours over the last few weeks to understand her requirements. She told me that a friend of hers, David Pentecost, had helped her with her English by editing her book and he had also gathered together copies of her awards, certificates and newspaper cutting and produced two books of these for her. Aiaaua1 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy[edit]

Hi, please do not disclose personally-identifiable information, yours or anyone else's, such as e-mail addresses on any page. I have removed them from the note attached to your pending draft, and requested that these are permanently hidden from the records. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tatiana Stupak (September 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is written in a promotional tone and an informal, narrative structure. Please rewrite in a factual, neutral and concise manner suitable for an encyclopaedia, avoiding WP:peacock terms and hyperbole, and without trying to 'sell' the subject to the reader.

Note that we don't need to know the blow-by-blow account of everything she has done, dates of her travels, each publication she has been featured in, etc. As such, entire sections of this could be reduced to a short paragraphs.

Note also that in an article on a living person (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details such as DOB must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.

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:Tatiana Stupak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aiaaua1! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tatiana Stupak (September 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are 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:

The sources are mostly unusable; interviews, pictures of awards and certificates, self-generated videos, etc. cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. We need to see secondary published sources that are reliable and completely independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject. Please highlight the three strongest such 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:Tatiana Stupak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I admit to be very surprised that television interviews are not considered to be strong enough evidence. I shall think about what you have said, and in particular, examine the references and pick out what I think are the three strongest, as you have asked, and write to you again in a few days’ time.

Aiaaua1 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with first-person interviews like these is that they are close primary sources, ie. not independent; it is the interviewee talking about themselves. Additionally, most broadcasters or publishers don't run real-time fact-checking during an interview, so even if the publication itself is generally reliable, the interview isn't, as there is usually little or no editorial oversight. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ttrdln per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ttrdln. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]