Chuglesper Grant

Chuglesper Grant, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Chuglesper Grant! 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 Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Christian J Smith for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian J Smith 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/Christian J Smith 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.

Notfrompedro (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christian J Smith

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 Christian J Smith requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian J Smith. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Christian J Smith moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Christian J Smith, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 13:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello Chuglesper Grant. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Chuglesper Grant. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Chuglesper Grant|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. CUPIDICAE💕 13:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. Chuglesper Grant (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it is directly written from the sources listed, unless your claim is that the sources themself are in it of itself promotional, of which I still would object because it simply lists the person's notable works. If the article still needs to be improved that's understandable, but i dont understand why it would not remain up to be edited further, and why the person must be speedily deleted (your reason here) --Chuglesper Grant (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC) it is directly written from the sources listed, unless your claim is that the sources themself are in it of itself promotional, of which I still would object because it simply lists the person's notable works. If the article still needs to be improved that's understandable, but i dont understand why it would not remain up to be edited further, and why the person must be speedily deleted Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,Praxidicae I do not understand why you continue to speedily delete a page that i created, giving the same response "completely and utterly non notable", at this point honestly it seems to me that you have a personal bias of the person and are in the business of bullying editors.I have contested the speedily deletion of Christian J Smith and have stated that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. It's like you specifically watch for this page just to delete it again no matter what the updates are. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it is directly written from the sources listed, unless your claim is that the sources themself are in it of itself promotional, of which I still would object because it simply lists the

person's notable works. If the article still needs to be improved that's understandable, but i don't understand why it would not remain up to be edited further, and why the person must be speedily deleted. -Chuglesper Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Then furthermore you go to the persons wikidata "Christian J Smith" page and state "Hoax, no evidence for this game's existence". This is clear and blatant vandalism. I don't understand why your are doing this. Please explain what your bias is please Praxidicae. I might be a fairly new editor, but i will not be bullied by anyone, and I am requesting the help of any administrator with this issue. Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Christian J Smith

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 Draft:Christian J Smith, 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. CUPIDICAE💕 13:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Then furthermore you go to the persons wikidata "Christian J Smith" page and state "Hoax, no evidence for this game's existence". This is clear and blatant vandalism. I don't understand why your are doing this. Please explain what your bias is please Praxidicae. I might be a fairly new editor, but i will not be bullied by anyone, and I am requesting the help of any administrator with this issue. Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it is directly written from the sources listed, unless your claim is that the sources themself are in it of itself promotional, of which I still would object because it simply lists the person's notable works. If the article still needs to be improved that's understandable, but i dont understand why it would not remain up to be edited further, and why the person must be speedily deleted (your reason here) --Chuglesper Grant (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC) it is directly written from the sources listed, unless your claim is that the sources themself are in it of itself promotional, of which I still would object because it simply lists the person's notable works. If the article still needs to be improved that's understandable, but i dont understand why it would not remain up to be edited further, and why the person must be speedily deleted Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,Praxidicae I do not understand why you continue to speedily delete a page that i created, giving the same response "completely and utterly non notable", at this point honestly it seems to me that you have a personal bias of the person and are in the business of bullying editors.I have contested the speedily deletion of Christian J Smith and have stated that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. It's like you specifically watch for this page just to delete it again no matter what the updates are. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it is directly written from the sources listed, unless your claim is that the sources themself are in it of itself promotional, of which I still would object because it simply lists the

person's notable works. If the article still needs to be improved that's understandable, but i don't understand why it would not remain up to be edited further, and why the person must be speedily deleted. -Chuglesper Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, many of the claims seem to be outright fakes. In the future, pleas supply reliable sources to back up your claims. As the article was previously deleted as part of a formal deletion discussion, limit yourself to creating drafts, and make sure every single claim has a solid source. As written, that draft was pure adcopy; I've deleted it. I'm sorry you feel "bullied", but we must adhere to our policies. Kuru (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

thank you for the response. I do not feel "bullied" but rather noticed that the same person continued to delete the page every time I updated it. Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS

The appropriate place to bring up my behavior is not a bunch of random talk pages but WP:ANI with evidence. If you keep pinging me and bringing this up on random talk pages, I will be requesting a block as you’ve yet to substantiate a single claim. CUPIDICAE💕 14:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As i said i am fairly new to wikipedia so say whatever you want. I tried my best to simply make sure my message was being seen and overlooked. And I have sunstantiated my claim, but as i have said you are biased, so either way you will not care. I have directly stated that i am not being directly or indirectly paid for my edits. How else am i supposed to substantiate that statement? Just watch your language. And do not threaten me please, about blocking me when I have given you a proper response, and simply asked for a disucssionn. Chuglesper Grant (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

you stated multiple times I bullied you. Yet you can’t provide a single diff. CUPIDICAE💕 15:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Im over this, if anything it is hostile people that cause people to leave wikipedia every day, and must also be why wikipedia more than ever has been requesting donations so the website can still stay alive. Sadly, i think i will stop donating to wikipedia and wikimedia productions solely because of you, and this is the only kind of "paying" ive ever done in regards to wikipedia, the website you are so proud of. But I am not worried, God will take care of the rest. Have a peaceful and blessed day. Goodbye wikipedia. Chuglesper Grant (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)