Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Johnsaavn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Lorne Michaels. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Hello, Johnsaavn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 10:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ronald Perelman, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ronald Perelman, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
I'm a Big Wikipedia fan...
So I've added Mr. Perelman's official bio, as of this evening (5-31-09) to his Wikipedia page. This is an authorized bio, from Mr. Perelman, and from his company, MacAndrews and Forbes. The information of the Wikipedia page prior to my posting tonight contained a variety of subjective and potentially libelous claims, and apparently was written by an author who has recently published an unauthorized biography of Mr. Perelman.
While we understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort... how can we make sure accurate information about Mr. Perelman stays posted on Wikipedia... especially for his biography? Again, we fully understand all Wikipedia posts won't be 100% positive; that's the nature of the beast; but we do want to make certain Mr. Perelman's official bio is accurate (as it is now, at 1910 EST tonight, after my posting). Can you help? Email me at <email address redacted> I want to play by Wikipedia's rules... just need some guidance. Thanks! Best Wishes, John DeMarchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 June 2009
It sounds like you've got a pretty level head, and are willing to play by the rules, so I'll spare you the usual BS. Basically the biggest two things to remember is that wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. This means that you do not own the article, and nor does Mr. Perelman. The other thing you need to remember is that wikipedia is not for blasting people, nor is it for promoting them. Wikipedia articles are required to remain neutral per policy. It sounds like you are trying to remove information that shows Mr. Perelman in a negative light. Unfortunately, if the previous version is reliably sourced, it must remain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is meant to present the facts, not put a spin on them. In the same note, it is not supposed to omit facts. Happy editing!DrewSmithWhat I've done 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
{edit conflict} :Right, firstly please do not provide email addresses in postings here or anywhere else on Wikipedis. Please read and understand the text at the ehad of this page:
The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral.
If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log.
Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page.
Remember to sign your posts.
Please click here to post your request. As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.
If you are unhappy with the contents of an article, the place to start is on the article talk page. It is courteous to discuss major changes with the existing editors of an article. The html links you provided do not all support your assertions. Some look like spam links. I have reverted your edits. Are you associated with Mr Perlman or any of his companies? If so then ther is a clear case of WP:Conflict of interest. If you have real concerns about the content of a biographical artcile about a living person then the correct place to post such concerns is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please read the guidelines there. Might I also suggest that you check ouit what Wikipedia:What_Wikiepdia_is_not. "Official" biographies are primary sources and not neccessarily encyclopaediac. What is needed is WP:Reliable sourcesJezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
No offense to OP, sincere question, you do understand that "official" is antithetical to "scholarly" and that a personal interest is often bad in terms of helping get a factual account and understanding of any topic? I appreciate the situation here but this problem comes up in many contexts, not just Wikipedia. Even in things like drug approvals that should be dominated by impersonal science, witness menacing reaction to earlier Provenge BLA, questions of who to believe are a big problem when facts can not be obtained to settle an argument of accuracy. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Aiken♫ 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of SIGA Technologies, Inc., and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Siga technologies. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan 14:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 7edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silverleaf Resorts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relationship Science, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Capital and Secondary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Skinshift, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jahoe (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, 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 ( or ) 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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skinshift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Doctors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinshift,Talk:Skinshift".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am the original proposer of the article for deletion. I still think it should be propably deleted - not very notable and written by someone linked to the company. However there is a great lack of other editors in this discussion for some reason, so I have listed it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for further comment.--FileÉireann 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogicWorks, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronald Perelman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Trade Center. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Johnsaavn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on File:WillDean.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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 removed 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. Whpq (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I'm Megalibrarygirl. Johnsaavn, thanks for creating Desiree gruber!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Use less information from the Lifetime website and more from news/magazine sources.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Desiree Gruber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifestyle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems to me that you may have Conflict of Interest in some of the articles you are editing. If that is so, you must disclose it. Please read WP:COICoderzombie (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
A page you started (Danielle ganek) has been reviewed!edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lorne Michaels. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General IzationTalk 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Three of the 4 sources currently cited state that Michaels was born in what is now Israel. The one source you cited in a previous edit (Vanity Fair) does not say where he was born. Your most recent edit supplied no new sources for your change, making your change completely incompatible with the existing cited sources. If you continue to make this change without citing one or more reliable sources that directly and clearly support it, you will be blocked from editing. See WP:BURDEN and WP:V. If you are who you say you are, I could see it being problematic for you professionally having your Wikipedia account blocked from editing. That being the case, we ask you once again to comply with our editing policies here. General IzationTalk 21:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Johnsaavn. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Lorne Michaels, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.
This is in regard to your edit summary that included the statement: " ... I work for Lorne ... "General IzationTalk 22:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
whoa.
Why are you blocking me? I am trying to update information on Wikipedia that is factually inaccurate; I've provided well over 5 sources, too. I'm the good guy here - trying to edit completely inaccurate info about Lorne Michaels, and replace that inaccurate information with actual information.
I have updated INACCURATE INFORMATION on a Wikipedia page. Not as a paid person working for anyone. I handle social media for Lorne - there is ZERO conflict of interest here. I just want inaccurate information about him being born in Israel removed from his page. I'm the good guy here!
You have repeatedly over-written my edits, all of which are well-sourced, and keep re-posting information about Lorne that simply is not true.
Now, you have blocked me? Come on. Be a little decent. Please unblock me, and let's talk about this. I have REPEATEDLY reached out and offered to discuss this matter on Wikipedia on the talk page and elsewhere.
(Redacted)
Let's please discuss this. I am CEO of a social media and digital rep firm - soxcialczars.com. Mr. Michaels has paid me NOTHING on theis Wikiepdia update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are not blocked – yet. If you claim to work for (and/or "handle social media for") the subject of an article you are editing, you have a declared conflict of interest, whether or not you are being paid "by the edit". And unless you can and do supply reliable sources that clearly state he was born in Canada (multiple, since we already have multiple sources that state otherwise), do not change the article to state this. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing further. Understood? General IzationTalk 17:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
As for "You have repeatedly over-written my edits, all of which are well-sourced", please identify those sources here. I only found one source you supplied, the Vanity Fair link, and it made no mention of Michaels' birthplace (so cannot be used to source a claim that he was born in Canada). General IzationTalk 17:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Lastly, please STOP posting your email address and phone number here or on any Talk page (or in any edit summary). Doing so is dangerous (for you) and unneeded, because as a matter of policy no Wikipedia editor will call or email you to discuss. Doing so is called original research here and is not permitted. General IzationTalk 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Here is a source - brittanica - again statinf Lorne Michaels was born in Toronto.
Surely, that is a legit source?
The others w/ inaccurate info all stem from one article written in 2011 by The Hollywood Reporter.
With due respect to THR, it is not as credible as Brittanica, is it?
Re: Why did you block me?
I will stand down from making further wdits on Wikipedia and will use a request edit form.
But please unblock me. That really isn't fair, or necessary, considering no COI is in play here.
I am a reasonable and fair person who has made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia over several years; really upset that you just blocked me, despite my repeatedly offering contact info and even setting up a talk page to discuss the matter.
Would you please unblock me?
I will abide by the rules, absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please maintain this conversation here, not on my Talk page. There is no good reason for us to be discussing this issue on two separate pages simultaneously.
You are not and have never been blocked. Please see for yourself.
And as I already explained, we will need multiple reliable sources for this change to ignore the three cited sources already present that indicate otherwise. The article history of the Britannica article indicates it may be based in part on the JVL article, which was based at least on part on the state of this Wikipedia article at some point in time. See again WP:CIRCULAR. General IzationTalk 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
general...
Hi!
I understand your concerns - but please, there is no #COI here, at all.
I respect WP rules - and understand why you raised a question.
But i would ask again: Please unblock me.
I only am trying to get inaccurate info off Lorne's page.
THR (The Hollywood Reporter) wrote an inaccurate article in 2011 - that's the source for all this born in Israel material. THR is a gossip magazine!
Lorne was born in Toronto - I have a Brittanica cite to that effect, among many, many others.
Lorne also received the Order of Canada - because he is a Candian citizen, born and raised in Toronto.
Asking again to please reconsider and please reinstate me.
See above. You are not blocked. Canadian citizenship and eligibility for the Order of Canada is not limited to only those born in Canada. I have already addressed the issue of sourcing above. General IzationTalk 12:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Why are these sources valid? CBC is Canada's largest news network; National Post is among Canada's largest papers; Brittanica and Time Magazine are well-known publications.
If these are acceptable, what is proper etiquette for getting the page changed and updated to reflect that Mr. Michaels' brothplace is, in fact, Toronto?
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You have been given ample warnings above that you must disclose if you are receiving payments to edit, yet have failed to do so. Please read the warning below carefully.
Hello Johnsaavn. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. 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. 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, 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:Johnsaavn. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Johnsaavn|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
++
Hi - apologies for causing issues here! Thank you for reaching out and offering me a chance to explain, too.
I am not being paid to post anything; I'm well aware of Wikipedia rules!
Let me be absolutely crystal clear on that: I have not been paid to post anything, by anyone, on Wikipedia.
Happy to discuss.
Happy to stand down until we sort this.
I will refrain from any further direct edits, as per your message, until this has been resolved to your satisfaction.
Sort of surprised, but I will do the necessary to resolve this with you.
Re: Lorne Michaels Page
I now have provided citations from Brittanica, CBC, TIME Magazine and the National (major Canadian paper) in an effort to get INACCURATE information off Mr. Michaels Wiki page - and have had no success getting the matter resolved.
The issue: Lorne Michaels was born in Toronto, not Israel.
The source of the "born in Israel" material is an inaccurate 2011 article by "The Hollywood Reporter," which is a far less reliable source than any of the four I have provided.
Yet my submitted changes keep getting overwritten. I am completely open to any way to resolve this that comports with Wikipedia rules. Right now, Wikipedia has terribly inaccurate information about Mr. Michaels' birthplace. I'm only trying to fix a glaring error.
What should I do? Open to guidance! Right now, what's on his page is totally inaccurate.
Re: Federica Marchionni Page
Perhaps I should have suggested a page vs publishing one; I cede that point; but the page is extremely well-sourced, and she's absolutely an important enough person to have a Wikipedia page. Again, not being compensated by her - at all. I posted a page for her because she is a well-known Italian-American business exec, and former CEO of Lands' End. I'm active in the Italian-American community; was surprised she did not have a page; so I submitted one. It's extremely well-sourced; she's been profiled in WSJ, NYT, InStyle and more; she's an extremely well-known executive in fashion world; she lectures all the time at Harvard and Stanford. Surely, she's significant enough to have a page?
I will absolutely post nothing until all matters have been resolved to your satisfaction. And thereafter, I am fine with your suggestion not to post any pages directly, and to simply suggest vs actually making edits. No problem.
Please respond and let me know what next steps are here.
I will stand down and not submit anything until I hear back from you about how I should (or if I should) proceed going forward.
Please know I respect the effort of Wikipedia editors like you; I believe Wikipedia is a fantastic, global resource; and I did not and would not compromise WP standards.
My sincere apologies for causing any concerns here. But I really do not have a #COI.
Thank you for replying and for stopping editing. The article that most caught my eye was Will Dean (businessman) - right from your first edit that article contained his date of birth, but seemingly without a source. You changed it to a different date a few days later. Then there is File:WD_headshot4_approved_Logo_Scrub.jpg which you claim as being your own work, but which has a file name that sounds an awful lot like what a PR professional would have. These are patterns that I've seen associated with paid editing before and it is difficult to see how you could have got the photo and his date of birth and not have a COI. Could you please explain what went on? SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
The photo came from the Tough Mudder website. They had a media kit for press on the site - I can't find it now (maybe they took it down)? But it was here: https://toughmudder.com/corporate-team-packages
They have the rights to it. The description was taken - verbatim - from that site. If I did not cite it properly, I apologize. The reason why that naming convention was used is that it's the one they used on their site. If you would like me to delete the photo, I certainly can do that.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. SmartSE (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
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 removed 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. SmartSE (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Disambiguation link notification for October 7edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Federica Marchionni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acumen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've reverted a bunch of your edits because way too much of what you wrote reads of promotion, not objective reporting. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Meant no harm! Had citations for all of it - is the objection to my text, or to the sources used? I can certainly rewrite things if that was the issue here.
19:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)johnsaavn
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your addition to Federica Marchionni has been removed, 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150820/NEWS07/150829977/inside-lands-ends-quest-for-a-younger-cooler-customer credits as "Photo by Bloomberg"General IzationTalk 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I honestly thought this was one of my own photos from that event; I'll find another one. I had it filed that way in a photo folder. Excellent catch, and thank you for it.
Johnsaavn (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Johnsaavn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Speedy deletion nomination of Icelandic Provisionsedit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Johnsaavn,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Icelandic Provisions for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, thanks for message. If you post an article it will be assessed as it stands. If you don't want that to happen, you should write it as a draft. I deleted your article because
it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. You gave some references, but not all seemed to be independent third-party sources. For example, your first ref is to the NY Times, which can often be a proper source, but in this case was simply quoting someone closely associated with the product saying how wonderful his skyr was.
There is nothing about the company to show why it meets our notability criteria. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits, but you just tell us about what they sell. It doesn't even appear to have a headquarters, either in the US or Iceland
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, but one editor removed some of your text with the comments Distribution: Remove ad copy trying to pass as encyclopedic information. and There's an article on skyr already. This looks, again, like advertising copy. A different (admin) editor then nominated the article for deletion.
the distribution section is just spam, why do we need to be told where to buy it?
heirloom skyr cultures creating a creamy texture and complex, mild taste[5] that is protein-rich, naturally low in fat and sugar.[6][7]— pure advertising copy. Even if the ref said this, it's largely opinion presented as a sales pitch
I notice that you have been repeatedly asked about a conflict of interest of interest which you have repeatedly denied, but in the circumstances you will understand why sorry if we erred on our initial foray here, but we will make changes requested to address your concerns and hopefully, get the page live. does not inspire confidence.
I usually finish these homilies with guidance on how to write an article, but you seem to know what you should be doing, even if you're not actually doing it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I very much appreciate the time you took to explain the objections above - thank you for making the issues much clearer for me. I will see if I can fix this so as to comport with WP guidelines. Looks like I have some work to do there - especially on documenting notability. Message received. On the COI part, I used the royal "we" - not sure that particular criticism is fair. The last thing I want to do is to upset WP and its editors - as this is a phenomenal resource. Stay with me. Johnsaavn (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
File permission problem with File:DavidPerryIndigo.jpgedit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:DavidPerryIndigo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
File permission problem with File:Geoffrey von Maltzahn.jpgedit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Geoffrey von Maltzahn.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Your writing appears to be promotional in nature, again.edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm referring to your edits on this page. Once I saw him described by you as a "purpose-driven leader," I felt like I was reading a CV and not an encyclopedia article, and I reverted your edits. Looking at your talk page, it's clear that this is not the first time this issue has been raised with you. Are you being paid to promote he people you write about? PaulCHebert (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Paul - hi! Hope and trust you are well. Saw an article on Indigo and Perry in Harvard Magazine (my alma mater), checked out his WP page (which was pretty bad), and was just updating his page (and making it far better and more thorough). I do not know Perry at all, personally - but he’s a fellow grad and was trying to help his page. I do this for free - and it takes time, too! Slightly disappointed that all edits were all reverted - they were extremely well-sourced, sir (which took time). But on language seeming promotional in parts - perhaps I can do better on that. I will try again. Stay with me. I don’t mind the scrutiny - and I do applaud your vigilance - and I can probably amend some of this to make it acceptable to you. Let me try. Fair? Respectfully, Johnsaavn (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
Thanks for uploading File:DavidPerry-Indigo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
File permission problem with File:DavidPerry-Indigo.jpgedit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:DavidPerry-Indigo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Per this edit, are you seriously claiming to be the copyright holder of the image? -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Here's the issue - this is a photo from the Indigo Agriculture public web site. It's clearly a public domain and usable photo. Yet WP keeps deleting it - I'm not sure what I am doing wrong. Help would be appreciated; I'm trying to do this photo upload correctly, but seem to be making a hash of it. Johnsaavn (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
It is clearly NOT pubic domain as the website footer states " Copyright 2018 Indigo Ag, Inc.". And the footer also includes a link to their terms of use which makes it quite clear that the material from their web site is not public domain. Lying about the license is not acceptable. As for help, the warning notice given above provides links to the appropriate policies and procedures. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am truly sorry. Something is getting lost in translation here. I will do whatever you want me to do here. As per your request, I will remove the photo - and will fix the problem. If necessary, I will get permission from the company to use the photo, in writing. I did not "lie" - I made an error. I absolutely apologize for the error. I am deleting the photo from the page now. OK - looks like you already did that. Let me sort this and get the permissions needed. Johnsaavn (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Quick question: Are you being paid to write ad copy/promotional material thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article by Icelandic Provisions? PaulCHebert (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
No - I am not. I was adding to the page because you had flagged it as a stub. I wanted to add more to address those concerns. They are not paying me; I just like the product. I definitely do not want to run afoul of you, Paul - was adding content to address the concern you raised (the stub tag). I can stop - and will. Can also any revert edits if you feel any recent ones are objectionable -- just LMK what you want tossed, and I'll do it. Johnsaavn (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on File:SAP CEO Bill McDermott Headshot.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — 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. Whpq (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading File:SAP CEO Bill McDermott Headshot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I see you've tried to upload an image of Bill McDermott with the idea that it can be done under fair use. Wikipedia's usage of copyrighted content is much stricter than fair use. Any use of non-free content, including non free images need to follow Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. The use of such a non-free image must also meet all the non-free content criteria. In particular, with respect to replaceability, images of living people are almost always considered replaceable. As such, it is extremely unlikely that any non-free image of Bill McDermott would be accepted. Quoting from the non-free content guidelines
Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.
Hi - SAP explicitly authorizes the use of the image...here's the detail:
1) See here: https://www.sap-tv.com/stockfootage/
"SAP Stock Footage and Press Photos
This media archive contains SAP photos and videos which are ready to use for your journalistic publications and broadcasts. You can easily search in various categories and download the material directly to your own computer."
Well, that's a bummer. Thought we were good. I am trying (hopefully the good meaning of that word, lol). I do appreciate you keeping me out of trouble here! Johnsaavn (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
File permission problem with File:SAP CEO Bill McDermott Headshot.jpgedit
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:SAP CEO Bill McDermott Headshot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to get all the paperwork done here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries - as you suggested above. And then email the permissions at WP, with some inclusion of consent from SAP. Hopefully this will suffice. The headshot of McDermott now is terribly out of date; truly trying to fix that in good faith here, but totally understand why Wikipedia required the licenses on photos. I'll get these done. Johnsaavn (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)JohnsaavnReply
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
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 ~~~~}}. MER-C 15:45, 27 July 2018 (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).
Your reason here Johnsaavn (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Why would you do this? I do not have any COI; I do not receive compensation for any edits we do; I go out of our way to discuss any issues that are ever raised -- and rectify them immediately. It matters to me to be in good Wikipedia standing, and my talk page illustrates just how hard we have worked to stay in good graces with Wikipedia. To say my entire purpose is advertsing is really an ad hominem attack, and is truly unfair. What can I do here? Do I have any recourse? Can I submit any future work to you before it goes live? Do I have any options at all? Is there anything I can do to get unblocked? Please advise. Johnsaavn (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
Decline reason:
I've had a good look over your contributions here, and I'm seeing a long record of article creations and edits that I rate as indistinguishable from promotion/SEO/reputation management - and from an admitted CEO of a digital reputation management company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2018 (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.
To start with, who is "we" ("any edits we do", "we have worked")? General IzationTalk 16:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I expect I know the answer: http://socialczars.com/about-social-czars/, per [1]. You may recall I warned you in September 2017 concerning paid (or unpaid, for that matter) promotional editing here. I'm not taking a position on whether or not you have violated Wikipedia policies and/or should remain blocked, but you invite scrutiny when you refer to yourself in the plural, and this affiliation should be clear to the admin who will review your request. General IzationTalk 16:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi - my error on that, again. I was using the royal "we." I'm one person only. Is there anything I can do here? I love Wikipedia and am honored to be a contributor. I absolutely will abide (and do abide, and have abided by) by the WP rules. You are one of the Editors/Admins who has helped me to continually improve as a WP contributor - thank you for that. I'm just trying to get unblocked; what can I do? Johnsaavn (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
(edit conflict) Also: I do not personally believe that you perform reputation management for your clients out of the goodness of your heart. You have (for some months now) been very careful to say that you do not receive compensation "for any posts", "for any edits we do", "to post anything", etc., but I strongly suspect that your firm earns a retainer to monitor and potentially influence the reputations of your clients – and if you do so here, that constitutes paid editing, whether or not you are paid specifically by the edit. General IzationTalk 16:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
As for what you can do to regain the ability to edit (or at least influence edits of) articles here, that isn't up to me, per se, but I suggest a good place to start will be to come clean on your purpose and intent for editing here. After that we can discuss options, assuming there are any. General IzationTalk 16:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
We are not paid by anyone to edit or to maintain Wikipedia pages. We do contribute to some Wikipedia pages for public figures, and we also post when we see clear inaccuracies on Wikipedia pages. Again: there is no #COI issue here. I don't know why that keeps being alleged? There's nothing to "come clean" about here - your phrase - because we are not being paid to do any Wikipedia work. We're being blocked here based on an allegation that isn't accurate.Johnsaavn (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
Forgive me, and I'm not meaning to disrespect you: but you still appear to me to be hedging your language. Are you paid (through your firm) to manage public figures' social media reputations, wherever they might come to light? My assumption (and I acknowledge that it is just that) is that that is how you pay the bills. General IzationTalk 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Where I suspect we're going with this is: to regain the ability to edit, you will very likely be required to maintain on your User page a list of those individuals and/or firms whom you count as your clients (and to keep it current), and to agree that you will not edit articles about or directly related to them. This would allow you to edit articles (only) in which you don't have (or have the appearance of) a conflict of interest. While this may seem intrusive, and may even be unacceptable to you, I suspect that this or something like it is the only way you will regain the ability to be an editor here (and I'm genuinely hoping you will be able to reach an accommodation like this, provided that you respect and comply with it). General IzationTalk 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I absolutely would accept those terms - not a problem. I do reputation work (overwhelmingly SEO and Social Media) for clients. I do not do any Wikipedia work for active, paying clients - because Wikipedia rules expressly forbid such work. Is there a place to submit that list of current clients -- would be happy to do so. That would be a fair and just solution here. Johnsaavn (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
OK; thanks, John (if I may). Having established a possible framework for resolution, let's wait now and see what the responding admin thinks. I suspect they have either been watching our discussion, or will be along shortly. General IzationTalk 17:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
In the mean time, please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which basically describes the mechanism we have been talking about. While you may maintain that you are not paid for your Wikipedia contributions, we agree, I think, that you are paid by people and/or firms who have Wikipedia articles, and we are discussing a proactive and verifiable method of ensuring that you don't either intentionally or inadvertently cross the line into COI. General IzationTalk 18:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have to say I think I'm still seeing evasive words here - "I do reputation work for clients" but "I do not do any Wikipedia work for active, paying clients" (my emphasis). Johnsaavn, can you confirm whether or not you mean you will not edit articles about or directly related to...any clients, past or present, whether or not they are current active paying ones? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree to edit no articles about or directly related to clients, present or past. Would that satisfy the concern raised here? Please advise - I will absolutely abide by Wikipedia rules. I'm truly not attempting to be evasive.Johnsaavn (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
Let's see what the blocking admin says... @MER-C:, any thoughts on the above discussion? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
In fairness, Icelandic Provisionswas not created by this editor, though it was created only days before this editor started editing there to expand it significantly, and by an editor who seems to appear frequently and coincidentally in all three articles. John, anything to say about this observation? General IzationTalk 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, my mistake, misread the history. John, is this editor related to you or your firm in some way? (Could well be not; they appear to be a specialist in antispam activities.) General IzationTalk 18:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
The linkedin page which I believe is Johnsaavn's states "+ Managing company (or celebrity) pages on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Google+, Twitter, Pinterest, Wikipedia, Vine, Tumblr, Quora and more" Lyndaship (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Johnsaavn has admitted, further up this page, that he is the CEO of http://socialczars.com, a Digital Reputation Enhancement company - though it currently does not mention Wikipedia on its home page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@MER-C: Your reasons for the block referred to failure to disclose paid editing, but I don't see that you initiated any discussion with this editor about the nature of their edits or relationships with the subjects, here or on the Talk page of any of the three articles you mentioned. Did you make an effort to determine whether they were actually a paid editor, or were you simply reacting to what looked to you like paid promotional editing? I don't mean this as criticism, but as appropriate fact-finding concerning the rationale for the block. General IzationTalk 19:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
There was zero communication pre-block. I logged into Wikipedia today to find an editor I don't know (nice to meet you, though, and hope we can resolve this) just decided to block me. That's not right. Icelandic Provisions is not a client; never has been a client; is not paid editing. I do like that product, though - which is why I took time to update the page. To just declare "I don't believe him" - what can I possibly do to change your mind? I've agreed to all the new conditions you suggested. How do we resolve this? Can we?Johnsaavn (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
@Johnsaavn: MER-C's observation about the article in your sandbox also raises another wrinkle here. I assume, relying in good faith on your representations above, that the eponymous "David Carey" is not currently a client or a past client. However, I find myself wondering whether he is a potential client, and whether your business model includes the "Who's Who in America" model of marketing – which is to say that you do some flattering work on behalf of a public figure, and then ask for the contract to maintain. (Again, no disrespect intended, though it may sound that way.) Clearly we cannot require you to declare you will never create or edit any article for anyone who might possibly be a client in the future, but I think you can see how this complicates matters. General IzationTalk 19:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@General Ization: I've been pondering exactly the same possibility, and it is a known way for such companies to tout for business - while still being able to honestly say that their Wikipedia contributions are not for clients, current or past. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Also, "directly related to clients" needs clarity. Sometimes, PR firms subcontract or otherwise pay other PR/marketing firms to do work for them but on behalf of their client. Anyone that happens to work indirectly for any of these interests needs to reveal this as well. The language will be broadly construed by us regardless of what might be agreed to. — Berean Hunter(talk) 19:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to answer the concerns above - but I'm blocked again. Carey is not a client; he's not a prospective client; he is the #1 guy at the #1 magazine company in the USA, and probably should have a Wikipedia page. That's why I was making one. Johnsaavn (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavnReply
And it doesn't do your reputation management company any harm at all if you just happen to have created glowing Wikipedia articles about the kind of people and companies that you might choose to target later as clients. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and David Carey is head of Hearst Magazines, which is a "partner with Condé Nast in the publishing services company, PubWorX". Your company lists Condé Nast as a client here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Here's one I lost in an edit somehow... You were recently editing Ronald Perelman, and his company MacAndrews & Forbes is also listed as one of your clients here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, John, but you have been blatantly dishonest with us and you have clearly been using Wikipedia for the purposes of online reputation enhancement for your clients (and most likely for potential future clients too). That is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's WP:COI policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's terms and conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I was pinged above. I want to clarify that I am in no way associated with this user. Id you read my edits to the articles he has worked on, you will see that I have been trying to dial back the blatantly promotional aspects of his writing. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC).Reply
Well, John, I think we gave it our best shot. Boing's observations (which I admit are interesting) aside, I think you'll need to accept that an inability to be a Wikipedia editor is an inherent limitation given your line of work, just as bank officers have to accept that they can never be seen at the horse track, or as a fireman can never sell firewood on the side. The nature of your work means that your motives, even if pure, will always be suspect. If you'd like to try again, you'll want to submit another {{unblock}} template to summon yet another set of administrative eyes, but I'm pessimistic that you'll be able to achieve the consensus among admins necessary to regain your editing abilities here. General IzationTalk 20:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Wow.
To address the concerns raised, and hopefully, resolve this issue to your satisfaction....
Re: "Business Model"... that's totally not what I do - at all. We are primarily an SEO and social media firm. I update Wikipedia pages because it's an amazingly valuable resource, and it's an honor to be a contributor. That's it.
Re: Disclosing current clients on my personal page or talk page. Just tell me what would satisfy you, and I will do it.
Re: Icelandic. Not a client, never has been a client, never will be a client. I like the product, though.
Re: Marchionni. Page is not promotional - it's incredibly well-sourced. I update her page because we are both Italian-Americans; as the Former CEO of multi-billion Lands' End and now International CEO of China's #1 luxury retailer, Secoo, she's absolutely newsworthy. She's the first Italian-American woman to lead a Wall Street firm.
Re: Fulenwider. Again - page is tremendously well-sourced. She's EIC for Marie Claire, one of the biggest and most influential women's mags around.
Re: Carey page in progress is similar to Marchionni and Fulenwider - like Fulenwider, he is a HUGE player in magazines. He's the top man at Hearst Magazines, for heaven's sake.
Re: Conde Nast. Let me try and follow the theory. Conde (which owns several thousand properties) and Heart (which owns several thousand properties) are partnered on PobWorx (one property)... do you seriously believe Conde is somehow compensating us for work for Carey - who is not even in their company, or their employ?
Re: Sarah Morrow. Sarah was a client years ago. She is not an active client. I am in no way being compensated for working on her page.
I am willing to cooperate in any way, accept any monitoring, anything you want to be reinstated.
Sorry, John, but how dumb do you think we are? You have been evasive, deceitful, and dishonest throughout. Your purpose here has blatantly been for the purpose of enhancing your business, and you have persistently tried to hide that. You have clearly been writing in glowing terms about your clients and people associated with them, and possibly potential future clients too. Given your clear interest in being seen as someone who writes the kind of things that existing and potential users of your company's services will want to see (ie positive reputation enhancement material), you can not be trusted to write in the neutral manner required by Wikipedia. It's not just whether or not you are currently being paid by the clients and ex-clients you write about, but that the kind of material your clients would want you to write (and the kind of material you actually have been writing) is diametrically opposed to the kind of material that is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. As User:General Ization suggests above, even with the best will, your professional role is incompatible with writing at Wikipedia. If you wish to appeal further, you can make a new unblock request. But I rate your chances of success as very low. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh, one last thing, you say "I update Wikipedia pages because it's an amazingly valuable resource, and it's an honor to be a contributor. That's it." But on your LinkedIn account you openly list Wikipedia as one of the places where you offer your professional services. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Something is getting lost is translation, sadly.
I don't question your intelligence - never did, never would.
I certainly don't question your honesty, motivation, or professionalism.
It's clear I'm not going to be able to persuade you to reconsider, and to unblock me.
Thank you to all editors in this thread for at least hearing me out.
You can still make another unblock request if you wish, and it will be reviewed by another independent admin - neither the blocking admin nor I (as one who has already declined one appeal) would be allowed to review it. As I say, I doubt it would be successful, but I do need to tell you that that option is still open. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Review Have reviewed the case in question. Agree with the indefinite block. Saying that you never edit your clients article and than you listing Sarah Morrow as a client and you are the major editor. Tagging all the articles these user has created for a indepth check would be supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
For the record, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinshift, he said "I do not work for Skinshift; you are, again, in error - I run my own company in NJ and have no affiliation with this brand." But, while these appeared after the deletion discussion, see this advertisement for them and this client list as of January 2016 for mentions that indicate the possibility that he already had a business relationship with them at the time, and at least supporting the conjecture that his edits were made in the interest of attracting future relationships. In addition, see the notice below about the deletion of a draft he'd written of an article about Relationship Science, which also appears on the 2016 client list. Largoplazo (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Icelandic Provisions, 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. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ronald Perelman, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jahoe (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
or 
) located above the edit window.
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lorne Michaels . Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lorne Michaels. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization Talk 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Your addition to Federica Marchionni has been removed, 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150820/NEWS07/150829977/inside-lands-ends-quest-for-a-younger-cooler-customer credits as "Photo by Bloomberg" General Ization Talk 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
