User talk:Fraz900

October 2023[edit]

Your edit to Ian Townsend has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Dormskirk (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granta School moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Granta School. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Granta School has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Granta School. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Fraz900. Thank you for your work on RAF High G Training and Test Facility. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Heights Junior School moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Linton Heights Junior School. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Justi yaya 04:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Anglian Learning. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fraz900, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as MattA Official (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglian Learning moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Anglian Learning (2). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. GPL93 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, and related matters[edit]

Hello, Fraz900. 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, 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. JBW (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to the person using the account "MattA Official"? JBW (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not connected to the MattA Official account in anyway, and am unsure what conflict of interests you are proposing I have in your previous notice? Fraz900 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming or moving pages[edit]

If there is a good reason to rename a page, it should be done by using the "Move" link. Copying the content of a page and pasting it into a new page is not an acceptable way of moving a page to a new title, because doing so loses the editing history, which must be kept to comply with Wikipedia's copyright licensing terms. JBW (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi there, I would first like to apologise for my initial response to the administrator on my account. I realise now that what I said was perhaps misleading. When I claimed to not be connected I intended to imply that I had not purposefully coordinated edits with the account in question, and I was certainly not the owner of that account. I am familiar in a real life context with the owner of the account, however as mentioned I have never discussed or coordinated any action on Wikipedia with them. In my initial response I attempted to illustrate this by referencing only the account in question and making no mention of the owner behind it, but I accept that this may have been misleading. Moving forwards I think this is an easy mistake to avoid that I am highly unlikely to repeat. |decline = This[

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).

Fraz900 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, I would first like to apologise for my initial response to the administrator on my account. I realise now that what I said was perhaps misleading. When I claimed to not be connected I intended to imply that I had not purposefully coordinated edits with the account in question, and I was certainly not the owner of that account. I am familiar in a real life context with the owner of the account, however as mentioned I have never discussed or coordinated any action on Wikipedia with them. In my initial response I attempted to illustrate this by referencing only the account in question and making no mention of the owner behind it, but I accept that this may have been misleading. Moving forwards I think this is an easy mistake to avoid that I am highly unlikely to repeat.

Decline reason:

Your edits[1] are evidence of coordination so I see no reason to unblock. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 8 February 2024 (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.

Misleading!? You denied a WP:conflict of interest. Now you are admitting the COI but you are denying coōrdinating efforts? Please concisely and clearly and without dissembly describe everything you have done to merit being blocked, what you would do instead, and what constructive edits you might make outside your conflict of interest. I'll leave this open for further evaluation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think this may be a misunderstanding on my part on what the conflict of interests policy refers to, I have never made an edit on a subject that I have a personal stake or connection to, and thus didn't think I would have scope to have a conflict of interests?

As for my block, I understand this was due to me denying any link to the MattA Official account, where a link (in real life) did exist. However I was earlier attempting to clarify that this real life link never involved any agreement or discussion of collaborating edits, and my actions on wikipedia were never influenced by it in any way.

If unblocked I would hope to continue providing edits in the British military area (specifically RAF and training establishments), a subject area that has no overlap with MattA Official's activities. Fraz900 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments relating to the block and your statements about it[edit]

This was not a question of two people who happen to know one another happening to do related editing independently: it was a question of two accounts actively coordinating editing. If any administrator is less than 100% sure of that, they are welcome to ask me to send them the proof by email, though I don't expect any administrator will need to take that offer up.
The nature of the collaboration between the two accounts makes it pretty certain that they are both operated by one person, but I gave you the opportunity to give an explanation either way, as one person or as two acting together. You chose to give neither. You say "what I said was perhaps misleading". "Perhaps"? It was an outright lie, deliberately intended to mislead, and we would have to be blind not to see that.
The nature of your editing makes it pretty well certain that you have been editing to try to use Wikipedia to promote a business to which you have some kind of connection, probably a paid connection. Nevertheless, I would have been prepared to consider any explanation you gave, had you chosen to give one.
Wikipedia guidelines and policies lay down conditions on use of more than one account, on collaboration between different editors, and on editing in areas where one has a conflict of interest, but they do not totally prohibit any of those. You were given ample opportunity to be open about what you were doing, and undertake to edit in future in accordance with those guidelines and policies in future, but you chose not to do so.
You have set up two accounts and used them dishonestly, with the intention of deceiving; when asked about the relationship between them you have lied about it; when you realised that your initial lie was not going to be believed you have retreated into another lie. Why should we give any credence to anything you say about your editing intentions? JBW (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that I am unlikely to convince you, but I would like to make it clear that I have no connection to any business that I have made edits about, and have certainly not been paid for any changes I've made to the site. For my own interest I would be fascinated to see what edits you believe suggest some paid connection to an organisation, as I believe all my edits have been factual and impartial. The only exception to this being when I copy and pasted an article (written by another user) instead of utilising the move tool, a mistake I've been made aware of and corrected; additionally in that article when I realised (through notice from other editors) that it was clearly promotional I made the necessary edits to return it to impartiality.

As for the accusation of me having setup both of the accounts, it is simply false. I have no control over the MattA Official account and no influence over its actions on the site. My familiarity with the user who runs the account in regards to activity on wikipedia extended at its most extremes to having a vague awareness that they were working on an article, which I later independently looked at and, without outside influence, edited.

To end, I would like to ask what I could have possibly gained from operating both accounts? Running multiple accounts would, to me, seem simply to give me an extra burden of logging out and logging in again repetitively, it wouldn't have aided in any edits or actions I've taken on the site? Fraz900 (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually care whether the two accounts have been operated by one person or by two acting together, but the claim that it was no more than "a vague awareness that they were working on an article" is utterly absurd, in view of the closeness of the coordination between the accounts. As for the nature of your connection to the business you have been promoting, I neither know nor care whether you are a paid employee, a former pupil wishing to publicise their old school, or anything else, but the likelihood of your having no connection at all looks highly unlikely and, in view of the fact that on the subject of collaboration between the two accounts you have lied, lied again, and are still lying, I have no inclination to give you the benefit of any doubt on other matters. Have you never heard of the boy who cried "wolf"? JBW (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Fraz900. Thank you for your work on Modular Initial Officer Training Course. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This page seems like a reasonable daughter article to RAF Cranwell. Parts of it read like a 'how to', and it would be great to see more of the history, perhaps incorporating material related to the historical Initial Officer Training.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]