User talk:Adrielhampton

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Adrielhampton. 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 benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartz deletion

Hello! I'm writing regarding the deletion of Mitchell Schwartz's page. It appears that I should make this appeal to you based on the edit history and the instructions for disputing deletion, before taking other steps. I am an advisor to Mitchell's campaign, and I am concerned that a non-neutral editor is going out of the way to impugn our entry when Schwartz does meet general notability guidelines. We're not heavy Wikipedia users and as this deletion was litigated over the holiday, we did not mount a defense. In addition to the issues brought up in the discussion prior to deletion, Schwartz was sought out as an advisor to Bernie Sanders' California campaign because of his stature and prominence in California political circles. In addition to the news articles cited in the original entry, Schwartz was featured in the Clinton campaign documentary "War Room" (IMDB credits), and is a regular CNN commentator, +, and +. Not only is Mitchell notable in his own right, he's one of only two candidates for Los Angeles mayor - deletion of his entry does a disservice to Wikipedia and to the people of LA. Adrielhampton

Thank you for raising the issue. I closed the discussion as delete because of the weight of argument brought forward as to the subject's suitability for meeting our inclusion criteria. There was also a general consensus by simple vote counting. While the subject may have notability in other areas, such as for those interested in the candidates for Los Angeles mayor, which would include the local media, the discussion found that he has no lasting global significance at the moment. He may well acquire significance - particularly if he becomes mayor, but at the moment he is a candidate, which under our guidelines is not quite enough. See WP:POLITICIAN. You may raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review, though it is worth reading the criteria for opening a review at WP:DRVPURPOSE. If you simply disagree with the close, that in itself is not a valid reason for opening a review. If you feel I have misread the consensus of the discussion, that there were more valid arguments for inclusion than deletion, especially when considering our inclusion guidelines and policies, then please say that now to me, and I will look again. If new reliable sources have come to light which indicate notability, then please bring them to my attention - imdb is not regarded as a reliable source as it is user generated, and appearing in a newsclip is not considered note worthy - see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:JOURNALIST. If the subject had gained a significant reputation as a journalist, such that people were writing about him and his journalism, then we would consider including him. We do not have articles on every journalist nor every electoral candidate. I would suggest that if you do go ahead and open a review, that you don't make comments about any editor whose vote you disagreed with. If you have cause for concern regarding the activities of any editor, then Deletion Review is not the place to discuss those. You are welcome to email me privately with concerns you have, and if I agree that your concerns are justified I will either take action myself or indicate to you what stages you need to follow. Please do not make allegations against another editor without first discussing it in private with me or another admin, as you may get blocked for making personal attacks if the allegations are unfounded. Also, while personally I don't fully subscribe to all that it says, it is worth reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as you are linked to the subject, and some users have a negative attitude toward users editing in relation to subject's they are linked to. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Adrielhampton. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Adriel Hampton, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Adrielhampton, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
Please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

It's the real me.

Decline reason:

I'm just removing this from the queue; if you follow the instructions and send the email, a volunteer will post here with confirmation of your identity and the block can be removed. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2019 (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.

Please follow the instructions in the block notice to verify your identity. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email with confirmation of the real you to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.-- Deep fried okra 17:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]