User talk:Chelseam5/Archive 1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Chelseam5, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Be kind to others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself
• Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 19:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tip of the day...

Sorting in categories

When linking an article to a category, you can tell the category how to sort the article alphabetically by using a piped link. For example, [[Category:Baroque composers|Bach, Johann Sebastian]] will alphabetize Johann Sebastian Bach in Category:Baroque composers under B instead of J.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Read more:

Help:Category  

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Meatsgains, this is one nice welcoming message - I really appreciate it! And the "editor's index to Wikipedia" page seems super-useful, thanks. I saw on your userpage that one of your focuses here is fighting vandalism, I'll also be happy to assist with that to the best of my ability. Chelseam5 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Edgybees moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Edgybees, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Given your conflict of interest, I strongly advise you put this through AFC and refrain from moving it yourself. Much of the content is puffery or based on press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae. I understand your action. I have now added over 10 additional references to the page (this company is very notable, I just didn't want to "over"-reference everything initially). Naturally, coverage of any successful life-saving company/organisation would appear in the news a bit like puffery, but it doesn't mean that it is... If you could take another look and see what needs to be deleted and move it to mainspace, that'd be appreciated, because the the AFC process can be tiring and I just don't think this case requires it. Chelseam5 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment here about the sources and the notability. Most, if not all of your sources are primary, passing mentions or press releases. There is almost nothing in the way of true in-depth coverage. As far as AFC goes, it is tiresome but it has a purpose and it is especially helpful for paid/coi editing to have a second set of eyes on content. So please add better sources and then submit it for review. Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I added several more secondary & independent sources, per your suggestion. I also made sure the language is as neutral as a Wikipedia entry about any company/organisation can possibly be. Thanks for the comments! Chelseam5 (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aidoc

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Aidoc, 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 ) 02:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Bradv deleted it shortly after the tag was inserted without any chance to reply. It should be noted that the article had already been live for two days without any interruption or issues, and other editors contributed to it. Anyways I uploaded it now to my sandbox at User:Chelseam5/sandbox2, worked on it, and removed as much as 50% of the content, only leaving "dry", non-controversial history facts that simply cannot be viewed as advertising. I'd appreciate it if you could take a quick look and give it a green light. Thank you for your contributions. Chelseam5 (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Edgybees

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Edgybees, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

First you said there weren't enough adequate sources, now you say the issue advertising. Can you point to a sentence that sounds like advertising? And remove it? I contested your tag on the talk page of that article. Chelseam5 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Hello, I just found out about this via an email notification. @Dreamy Jazz: FYI that block was unjust as obviously no suckpuppetry was found and I can assure you I'm not related to that use (perhaps someone from that company asked him on his own to upload the article without waiting for the AFC process or something, I don't know). {{ping|Praxidicae} It's great that you want to protect Wikipedia but at the same time administrators need to use their actions wisely and neutrality, and not automatically delete an article that had been live for days without any problem as you did monnths ago without an explanation just because it's a company article; such actions prevent a constuctive editor from contributing to Wikipedia if just one or two times they accepted payment for an edit and disclosed it properly. Chelseam5 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)  

@Praxidicae: fixing failed ping. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I would note, that the draft is not deleted. It has been moved to a more appropriate title in draft space. You can find the draft at Draft:Edgybees. Furthermore, the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chelseam5 suggested sockpuppetry, so the account was blocked as suspected sockpuppet. The case and evidence convinced me and a clerk that there was sockpuppetry involved. Your block is now expired. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that. And when I mentinoned deletion, I referred to actions taken months ago. Never mind. Chelseam5 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edgybees (February 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edgybees and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Edgybees, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chelseam5! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aidoc (April 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aidoc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aidoc, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chelseam5! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edgybees (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edgybees and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Edgybees, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting how you declined this draft 17 minutes after it was submitted for review. Is it possible that you're biased against it? Are you trying to gain imagined credibility points by taking such actions? For anyone reading this, Praxidicae is also the editor that had previously pushed to speedy delete it, ignoring Wikipedia's guideline of avoiding deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation. This draft now has established independent, primary and secondary sources, over 20 of them, what else is needed? Are you capable of pointing at a sentence that proves your "advertisement" claim? It appears you are not saying the truth regarding the content of a page; that is a both a highly immoral act and one that goes against the WP policies. Since I'm not the first one experiencing this from you, your edits shall be monitored and may reported to admins for damaging the the WP work environment. Chelseam5 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should address the issues instead of throwing out personal attacks. I'm pretty sure that any other reviewer worth their weight would tell you the same. Also what are you talking about? No one deleted anything. Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also feel free to report me to WP:ANI, otherwise redact your patently absurd and asinine attacks. Cheers. Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chelseam5. I'm an administrator. I'd be grateful if you could, perhaps source by source, explain how you believe them to be reliable and fully supporting of each claim made in your draft. Nick (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Chelseam5Bahaha, report away dude. Your article is riddled with PR sources. No editor would even need that 17 minutes. It would take all of ten seconds for Praxidicae, myself or any other reviewer to spot that and decline it. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae it's you who's avoiding the issue, yes you deleted the article months ago by moving it to draft space after it was created. And again, you are claiming (and seconds later deleting?) stuff that doesn't align with the truth - I did disclose the conflict of interest on my profile from the very first moment, and you yourself pointed it out in our past discussion when it suited your needs. "Sulfurboy", worry not. Everything has its time. And one can only hope that a "Bahaha"-style editor who "would like to be one someday an adminisator" (as noted on your page) won't have his way.

Nick, thanks for the only constructive comment. They are many independent, primary and secondary sources, in the article, each is supporting the next that precedes its in-line location, and I don't think there's a need to exhaust anyone by copy-editing all the in depth coverage. These WP:reliable sources include The Jerusalem Post, CTECH - two of the big four newspapers in Israel, UAV News, and Rotor Drone - leading publications in the AUV and drones field, American magazine I21C, mentions in the highly respectable New York Times and Finanical Times, as well as TechCrunch. I understand WP criteria well, am unrelated to any user who has edited that page, and am being obstructed for the obvious paid disclosure despite doing everything according to the guidlines. I accept that there were a few or too many public relations sources, which I didn't know would be a big issue, and have removed them now. Chelseam5 (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My move as perfectly in line with policy - if you would like to continue to accuse me of breaking said policy, I'd like to direct you to WP:ANI where you can file a report for review of my action of moving a paid article back to draft space where it is required to go through WP:AFC. Also wrt to your erroneous claim that the NYT establishes notability in this case, that's laughable. It's a press release, which you'd know if you bothered to actually read the source you linked. The Jpost piece is an opinion piece and CUAV is a small niche publication and doesn't establish notability. If you ping me again and accuse me of acting in bad faith or otherwise violating policy, it had better be dropping a notice for an ANI discussion on my talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for insisting, policy violations will be reported at WP:ANI. You will not dictate my actions or my schedule. Sulfurboy Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure says that "editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries." I disclosed it on my user page as directed. Adding these tags on the draft pages is not mandated by policy, and can be seen as some for of personal revenge. That tag you added is used in cases when an editor hides this fact. Do not add these tags again as such actions are not needed and also merit a report on WP:ANI. Chelseam5 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Chelseam5, Wrong. You need to disclose on any draft being submitted through the AfC process. Tags restored and second warning sent. I'm going to ask the same as Praxidicae that you don't ping me with your nonsense again unless it's in a report to WP:ANI. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Archives:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

April 2020

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Draft:Edgybees, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Chelseam5, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Chelseam5|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: Hello. I did add the {{paid|user=|client=}} tag to my user page. Did you read terms? Here's what they say:

...You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."

So I did the first one. Why are you abusing the rules of WP? And why are you also adding it to the drafts, when it clearly says that it is enough to do so on the user page? Remove it (and avoid future nonesense on my talk page). Chelseam5 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Chelseam5, Paid editing gets a different level of review, thus the notice is put there for the convenience of other reviewers. You're right, you don't have to add it to the page, but any other editor (such as myself) is welcome to do so. It will be removed if and when the article is approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that I was right. You are not welcome to add the "undisclosed payments" tag all over when it had been disclosed - it is a false label. Just like everyone else on WP and after so many years here you should probably know how to abide by the policy. Chelseam5 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

actually the rules are changing. Sulfurboy's request was entirely appropriate. As a paid editor, you are here on tolerance, and should not quibble. As an admin work ing in this area, I am going to add appropriate tags to the article. I am also going to remove all medical claims not supported by WP:MEDRS level sources. The place where you can refer to conference publications and the like is the company web site DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aidoc has been accepted

Aidoc, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Uziel302 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)