User talk:NawJee/Archive 1

NawJee, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi NawJee! 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 Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ambler State Forest has been accepted

Ambler State Forest, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi NawJee! You created a thread called New here at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi NawJee! You created a thread called A question about stubs at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi NawJee! You created a thread called Wikilinking templates at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MER-C 17:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Do feel free to remove this section, and the section below, or/and any sections you like, from this talk page, at any time. The relevant guideline is WP:BLANKING; there is no active block anymore. The unblock conditions have been logged in the block log and don't need to remain permanently visible on this page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, my account has been blocked because my contributions were found to be promotional in nature. I understand that the administrator who blocked me must have seen something odd, but can you please point it out to me? I haven't made any promotional contributions, but if some were seen as such, please tell me about them and I will refrain from making similar edits/contributions in the future. NawJee (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You are unblocked under the following conditions, which can be appealed individually at WP:AN at any time:

• Instead of directly creating articles about any topic, you will create them as "Draft:"s, which can easily be submitted for review by adding "{{subst:submit}}" at the top of the page.
• You will not create articles nor drafts about living or recently deceased people, companies, products or commercial topics, broadly construed.

See below for details and additional advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion that led to the conditions

What is your connection to the Moving Mountains company? 331dot (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC) I recently started eating their food. Looked up which meat-alternative companies are listed here, found most of the major ones already have pages. Since Moving Mountains wasn't listed, so I did a notability search and created its page and included it in the List of meat substitutes page. I was going to create articles on Buddha Bowl (it already existed, so marked it as such in the requested articles page) and Koya-dofu (listed under legumes in the meat substitutes page, the draft is almost ready). I have a whole list of articles I am planning to write next, I can share the list with you if you want. NawJee (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Ping @MER-C and 331dot: for input. Especially MER-C. Credible enough? NawJee, please do share the list here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC) @MER-C, 331dot, and ToBeFree: Here's the list of articles I was planning to write, most of them were picked from Wikipedia Requested Articles. I haven't checked them all for notability, yet. Kech Fire - 1983, British Columbia Martin Fire - 2018, Nevada Laguna Beach Fire - 1993, California Regulation H – Membership of State Banking Institutions in the Federal Reserve System Herman van der Wee - [de:Herman Van der Wee](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Van_der_Wee), Belgian economic historian (Heineken Prize for History, 1992) Koya-dofu - (kōya-dōfu, 高野豆腐 in Japanese), freeze-dried tofu that has a taste and texture similar to meat when prepared, common in Buddhist vegetarian cuisine Lynne Olver - (1958–2015) – food historian and author of the Food Timeline website (foodtimeline.org), a useful resource for many WP editors and newspaper columnists Black's Barbecue/Terry Blacks's Barbecue - family-run since 1932; one of the four restaurants born from "The Barbecue Capital of Texas", Lockhart, Texas; locations now open in San Marcos and Austin Mzee Edward Gicheri Gitau - also known as Juha Kalulu after his long-running cartoon strip. Kenyan cartoonist Drones and Wildfire Management - Use of drones technology in mapping, surveilling, and suppressing wildfires (needed to figure out if this should be part of Wildfire Suppression or Wildfire articles, but I have enough information for an independent article) Lesego Semenya - (Also known as LesDaChef) - South African Celebrity Chef, Author and judge on Top Chef SA Haydn Murray (1924–2015) - American clay mineralogist, foremost expert in the world on applied clay mineralogy. He was the recipient of the Hardinge Award in Industrial Minerals from the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIME; 1976); Marilyn and Sturges W. Bailey Distinguished Member Award from the Clay Minerals Society (1980), which also selected him as its Pioneer in Clay Science Lecturer (2009); and University of Illinois Department of Geology Alumni Achievement Award (2004). Lawrence Ziring - (1928–2015) - the Arnold E. Schneider Professor of Political Science at Western Michigan University. He authored or co-authored a dozen widely cited books about Pakistan and fifteen Encyclopædia Britannica articles on the subject Dr. KL Dhingra - the director of National Institute of Bank Management, Pune since 1st May 2017. Before joining this institution, he has worked as the Chairman and Managing Director of Housing and Urban Development Corporation, New Delhi and also as the Chairman and Managing Director of ITI Ltd., Bangalore. He has the distinction of getting the PhD. together on the same day along with his wife. For this, he has been covered by India Book of Records, Asia Book of Records and World Book of Records. Kumu/Komo people - The Komo are horticulturalists who live in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo in the rain forest and rolling hills. They come from Bantu stock who migrated southward from modern day Cameroon to the Congo River Basin, then upstream toward the Ituri, Maiko and Lowa tributaries, beginning around 1000 B.C. Bergwerk Saar Mine - The page was to be translated from German to English Wikipedia, with additional references and content if possible. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergwerk_Saar Savuka Mine - Gold mine in South Africa Most of the descriptions are copied from Wikipedia Requested Articles page to give me direction when I research them. NawJee (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Seems okay to me, but I too want to hear from MER-C first. 331dot (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Okay, thank you. I'll wait, too. NawJee (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC) That's not the only problem. NawJee also created Draft:Paul Orajiaka and Draft:Adam Baratta - like Draft:Moving Mountains (company), they are promotional articles in topics prone to UPE. There is, as far as I can tell, no other connection between them - that in itself favours spamming as an explanation. I could not find any evidence any of those three were listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles. It may be true that NawJee intends to create those articles above, but that doesn't prove they're not spamming. MER-C 09:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC) I will admit that on a second look the mix of topics does seem odd- as does the term "notability search", something that I've never seen a new(or any, really) user use. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC) @MER-C: There are several topics listed above that have no connection between them. Also, many of the articles I have created and listed above are not part of the Requested Articles list. Can you please elaborate on how this means spamming? If this was in breach of any Wikipedia policies, I was not aware of those policies. There is no conflict of interest that I see, but you are an experienced editor/admin here and I respect what you have to say. I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia and any guidance on how to be better would be lovely. Thank you for the correction and pointing out any errors that I might have made. @331dot: The mix of topics is simply based on my range of interests. About the term 'notability search', how do you refer to looking up and researching subjects of Wikipedia articles as required by the Notability guidelines and Advance source searching page? MER-C and 331dot Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. NawJee (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) This type of blocks is extremely hard to review, and the review has a much higher probability of being unfair than in other cases. MER-C's concerns are reasonable; the Requested Articles list is a reasonable source for inspiration as well. Undisclosed paid editors are sometimes paid to write extremely convincing lies, and it becomes nearly impossible to differentiate between a legitimate stumbling newcomer and paid policy violators. To become unblocked, you may be required to agree to extremely limiting unblock conditions, such as: Not creating articles in the mainspace directly anymore, for an indefinite period of time Avoiding the creation of drafts about topics with uncertain notability Accepting the repeated decline of submitted drafts; not being insistent; strictly staying away from lengthy arguments (WP:PAYTALK, WP:DISENGAGE) Never editing about any of the topics you have edited before the block, broadly construed, ever again Not implementing your list of proposed article creations; never editing about any of the topics listed above in the future (let's treat this as if you just gave away your potential list of paying clients). You may wonder what this leaves you with, and there's plenty of other ideas that are less problematic. See the WP:Community portal and the WP:Task Center for uncontroversial tasks. Also see meta:List of Wikipedias; you're blocked on one of hundreds. Are these conditions okay with you, worth negotiation or outright unacceptable? I do explicitly note that you may be completely innocent, and that these conditions may be blatantly unfair. I just think that there is no other way out. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) @ToBeFree: Hi, the conditions you set out do seem a bit unfair; however, if this is normal procedure on Wikipedia and this is what it takes for all new editors to earn the trust of the community, I agree with some reservations which I hope you will at least consider. I can put all articles through the Articles for Creation process, no worries. Of course, significant notability only. Sure thing, reasonable. Got it. If there is new information in the future, should I at least update it on the article's talk page if nobody else does it first? Can I at least write about neutral topics? I have already written drafts for Martin Fire, Regulation H, and Drones and Wildfire Management. I'd be happy to take them through the Articles for Creation process. I will work on the Community Portal and Task Center. Awaiting your response. Thanks for the consideration. NawJee (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC) NawJee, I'm sorry for that. And no, this isn't normal – I'm afraid the normal procedure would be "no administrator dares to unblock, the appeal remains unanswered for a month and is then procedurally declined for not having been convincing enough". As this would be even more unfair, I made a less unfair proposal. I do acknowledge the situation sucks, but it does for both sides of this discussion. Putting all articles through the AfC process is a very important part of the conditions, and makes it much easier to agree to an unblock. This is because AfC ensures that even if you were an undisclosed paid editor, the articles would only be accepted if they actually benefit the encyclopedia. It minimizes the risk of having to trust you, as unfair as this may sound. Again, sorry for that. Thanks for agreeing to the notability requirement; please note that notability is often highly over-estimated by newer editors. Interviews are not independent sources, for example, and many new editors mistake interviews for independent sources. WP:PSTS contains useful further reading. When in doubt, please assume that a topic is not notable. There is usually a reason that, of over one billion speakers of the English language, noone has yet created an article about the topic on the world's largest encyclopedia. If you are connected to a topic in any way, stay away from editing about it, since the connection is extremely likely to make you over-estimate notability. I strongly recommend leaving all topics you have ever edited about on Wikipedia behind, and having a clean start without ever touching these articles again. I'll need to ask the blocking administrator for approval of an unblock, and without this condition, I'm afraid MER-C will just say "no". All conditions can be appealed at WP:AN at any later time – for example, when you have become an experienced Wikipedia editor, have had many articles accepted and would finally like to start creating articles directly. Or if you would like to return back to the topics you had edited about before the block. Ping: Let's hear what MER-C thinks about this. If I understand correctly, the block is not based on off-wiki evidence, but rather the impression of someone having an unusually diverse spectrum of article creation interest, and the tone/neutrality of the created articles. If there is more to this, or if you consider the behavior to be so absolutely evident of undisclosed paid editing that my conditions are unreasonably lax, please say so. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Above proposals collapsed to avoid confusion. Indentation reset. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be sorry. I understand that there has been a massive surge of paid editors over the past few years. I was just now looking at the work you, MER-C, and other admins have been doing. It is commendable. I also understand that that's probably why it is hard to trust new editors. Well, I agree to your proposal. Thank you for an elaborate response. I will try to do right by the encyclopedia if unblocked. I will wait for what MER-C decides. Best regards, NawJee (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, although a little too restrictive. The wildfire stuff is fine, and I wouldn't mind if NawJee was permitted to create articles on this topic or any other topic that is safe from UPE - so no biographies, companies, products or commercial topics broadly construed - directly at some point. MER-C 08:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah perfect. Thanks NawJee and MER-C.

NawJee, you are unblocked under the following conditions, which can be appealed individually or as a whole. While appeals can theoretically also be made to the unblocking administrator (me, at User talk:ToBeFree), I'd prefer if appeals are made at WP:AN for community input. To enforce community input, I will probably just categorically deny any appeal that is made to me directly. However, of course, you are welcome to invite me to the discussion if you start one at WP:AN.

• Instead of directly creating articles about any topic, you will create them as "Draft:"s, which can easily be submitted for review by adding "{{subst:submit}}" at the top of the page. This restriction is for an indefinite amount of time, but would probably be the easiest/first one to be appealed in the future, after a track record of accepted submissions has been established.
• You will not create articles nor drafts about living or recently deceased people, companies, products or commercial topics, broadly construed. This restriction, indefinite as well, can be appealed at any time. I recommend not doing so before the first restriction has been lifted.

The following points of advice are not a formal restriction, have no specific duration and do not need to be appealed (use common sense):

• If a draft is declined, of course you are welcome to address the concerns and re-submit. And perhaps once more. Especially if "notability" is a concern, however, please disengage early and keep discussions concise. If "reads like an advertisement" is a concern voiced by a reviewer, this is a warning bell and broad hint to abandon the topic.
• Creating new drafts about nature events, such as Binta Lake Fire and Anderson Creek Fire, is very helpful and adds historical, permanent value to the encyclopedia. Creating drafts about companies that barely meet the notability requirements, on the other hand, is rarely an actual benefit to the encyclopedia. Creating drafts about people who barely meet the notability requirements can even be harmful – unintentionally and easier than one may think. The choice of topics has a real impact on how easy it is to get a draft accepted, and how positive the impression when looking at your article creations is. The wildfire surely hasn't paid you to write about itself, the wildfire has no personal interest in being on Wikipedia, the wildfire is a perfect topic in this regard. I didn't do a notability check, but "largest wildfire in the Kansas state history" sounds pretty notable to me. Wikipedia should probably have an article about the topic; thank you very much for having created it.
• Improving existing articles is also very helpful. The probability of helping a large amount of readers is high if the topic is obviously notable and described by an article already. I recommend to avoid editing articles about living or recently deceased people, companies, products or commercial topics, broadly construed, for now, but this is not a strict requirement. If you do edit about these topics, please be careful not to get dragged into disputes; keep the edits uncontroversial and disengage early. Stay away from conflicts of interest; avoid topics listed at Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions. Experienced editors have tried, and failed, to remain neutral and calm when editing about these topics.

Thank you very much for your time and patience, for your understanding and for the voluntary work you do for readers all over the world. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @MER-C and ToBeFree: for reviewing my request, for guidance and help, and for unblocking my account. I will do my best to follow the instructions and comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. NawJee (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, NawJee. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Task Center
• Help pages
• Newcomer help desk
• Main help desk

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree. thank you for the welcome. I'll look into the Task Center and other areas to see how I can help. NawJee (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)