Smilejorge

October 2020

Hello Smilejorge. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Smilejorge. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Smilejorge|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sharon Okpamen

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

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

A tag has been placed on Draft:Sharon Okpamen, 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. Celestina007 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Smilejorge, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Smilejorge! 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 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sharon Okpamen

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

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

A tag has been placed on Draft:Sharon Okpamen, 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. Celestina007 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Aggressively Recreating Promotional Article

Following this an extraction reads Point of correction, i have did not receive any monetary credit for the article, i declared paid status based on the recommendations from you, please do not gaslight, I have never interacted with you, asides placing a G11 tag on an article you created before(which got deleted) & today, when you have recreated this same article & I have tagged it again with a G11, so what are you saying? or are you operating multiple accounts? You also make mention of the teahouse, Now, take a look at your entry & the replies you have received thus far here & tell me what don’t you comprehend in what they have been telling you so far. Furthermore, the idea that you aren’t paid to create this article but are just following the orders of some editor(definitely not me) who arbitrarily told you to declare yourself a paid editor even though you aren’t a paid contributor is just plain ridiculous, & probably a bald faced lie. If you have diffs to prove otherwise, please do show me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 your term Aggressively Recreating Promotional Article is a far call! like i said and i will say again it is not a do die affair. It's just an article for a know artist. If you have any bias about accepting articles from certain designation please state the obvious rather than pulling strings behind and black tagging articles written in line with the NPOV guidelines. Someone somewhere might just need some few lines of the references in the article to get done with their college project, please don't use your to privileges to deprive them... if you there are some lines looking too "promotional" for you.. please point it out and edit as pleased after all that is one of essence of wikipedia... Thanks

It’s great to see you digressed & totally ignored the question I asked originally to show me the diff where you were asked by an editor to declare yourself a paid editor even though you weren’t. Bias? What Bias? Please Don’t cast aspersions. If you continue down this path you most definitely would get blocked. You better quit whilst you are ahead, many editors have journeyed this path you are currently traveling on & all of them eventually got blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 please, in a response of an honourable gentleman, how does my right to contest deletion of an article written in accordance with wiki's NPOV warrant the threat to block me?

It’s not a threat. Any SPA editor whose sole purpose is to use Wikipedia for promotional activities would eventually get blocked. Continue to use Wikipedia as a means to promote your client who has employed your services & you would eventually get blocked. For the umpteenth time, could you be so kind as to show me the diff which substantiates your claim that an editor here asked you to declare yourself a paid contributor even though they knew you weren’t? Why do you keep evading that question? Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

”@Celestina007 "Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Smilejorge. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)"

The fact that you complied means you affirmed that you were indeed receiving financial rewards & in no way did HickoryOughtShirt?4, order or force you to declare yourself a paid editor even though they knew you weren’t as you subtly implied here. So either you quit editing that article & gain sufficient experience first or risk landing yourself a block per SPA promo account. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)