User talk:Dannyazul23

This is Dannyazul23's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Parkinson (lawyer) (December 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephen Parkinson (lawyer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Parkinson (lawyer) (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't think the DPP comes under WP:JUDGE, although I'm happy to be proven wrong on that. Therefore notability must be established per WP:GNG, and the sources currently cited fall far short of that, being all primary, bar (no pun) the FT piece, which alone isn't enough.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephen Parkinson (lawyer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dannyazul23! Having an article draft 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Parkinson (lawyer) (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephen Parkinson (lawyer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Chetsford (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not intend to breach - should I delete my contributions? Dannyazul23 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add I don't make edits with any other account. Again apologies for any error - happy to correct. Dannyazul23 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dannyzaul23. Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest on your User page. If you want to have your account unblocked, read this page carefully:

Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks

And then follow the steps outlined there. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your helpful guidance! Dannyazul23 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2024 (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).

Dannyazul23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. Just read all this - I’m nothing to do with the Bennet43 account. Don’t know how to prove that. But I can confirm having now read the above that both the accounts Alundahluk and Dannyazul23 are mine - newbie error publishing first article - I sent up Alundahl to make some edits to existing articles and decided to change name before creating new articles as found that there are a number of people called Alun Dahl and didn’t want to impersonate - no intent to ‘socketpuppet’, didn’t know of the policy, but now can clearly see how it looks off! Hopefully from :swift reply you can see this was inadvertent but now knowing best practice realise this was an error. Happy to delete one/both accounts if deemed appropriate and will not make same mistakes again! Thanks for the guidance and consideration. Apologies. Dannyazul23 (talk) 1:53 pm, 2 January 2024, Tuesday (26 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I am are unable to unblock you at this time. I recommend waiting at least six months before you again request unblocking. (You should not evade your block by editing the English language Wikipedia from a different account or while not logged in during this time. It would reset the six month timer.) It would work in your favor for you to constructively edit a different Wikipedia or Wikimedia project during this time, for at least six months and at least 500 edits. You will then need to concisely and clearly tell how your editing merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias . Before again requesting unblocking, please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Please read and heed any other advice you have received in unblock declines or discussions. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 8:41 am, Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (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.

@Dannyazul23: have you created and/or used any other accounts? And I suggest you be honest. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for replying. Yes. Happy to respond. I had an account probably four/five years ago - don’t recall the name - made a few edits on one topic not related to my current edits/company. I have newer account for personal reasons I’ve never used for editing. Having been helpfully made aware of best practices I commit to follow but can understand that my errors will cast doubt. Thanks for your help here. Dannyazul23 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few more questions:

Do you recall whether the edits made by that old account were promotional and/or in paid relation to any company?
I'm a bit confused about your reasoning for creating another account. Could you explain it again?
Am I correct in the understanding that part of your role in Kingsley Napley includes editing Wikipedia?
I recommend you read WP:LEGITSOCK to ensure the newer account for personal reasons you mention is indeed going to be used for one of the allowed situations. Take heed to the last sentence in the section as well.

DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for your speedy reply.

- My past edits were about an industry.

- The reason is that I didn’t want my edits to appear to be made by someone who is a lawyer with that same name - didn’t want to seem to impersonate.

- I’m not asked to do this by anyone - at work, it was entirely my silly personal idea whilst being bored on vacation!

- Thanks have read just now and will read again and ensure compliance.

Appreciate this all looks weird!

thanks again for your time. Dannyazul23 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a lawyer at your firm or a member of staff?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not a lawyer Dannyazul23 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my mistakes here - thanks for your help and advice. Dannyazul23 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - keen to resolve this. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to undo any overlapping edits you choose - which I think are to do with the description I used ‘internationally recognised’ and the replacement ‘London law firm’ on alumni pages. Looks like I should also add references to the two accounts in their talk pages. Happy to commit to learning and abiding by policies and making no further changes to the pages in question. I could also give up access to either account if that seems right. Many thanks. Dannyazul23 (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be frank: Wikipedia's technical logs indicate you, or someone you're in direct contact with, previously edited with a disclosed paid relation to a different company in a similar style to the edits made from this account. I feel your past answers were a tad evasive, and I certainly understand the desire for privacy, but you can see how it's difficult for me to assume good faith here. Therefore, I'd like to ask you whether you have any paid relation with any of the subjects of your edits, and want to highlight Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Additional notes on who must disclose where it says "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." This includes other sorts of marketing behaviour for the subjects.

Furthermore, besides my question above (which is a preludial red line), to be unblocked you'd need to display a proper desire to improve the encyclopaedia beyond the promotion you've shown so far. You can do this by either doing proper work on another Wikimedia project, or by following these instructions (copypasted from a template):

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Reading our guide to improving articles.
Picking any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.

Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}}),
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]),
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]),
  - and do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits have any citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.

DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 00:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your time and consideration. I do understand your concerns and I'm sorry my quickly written brief answers came across as evasive.

I don't have any paid relationship other than with the firm I currently work for as an employee, which is stated on this profile. Sorry I don't know how to prove that to you. The other profile you mention is the one I outlined above - I used that as mentioned a number of years ago, when I was an employee of another company, which is again stated on that profile as you note. I don't think that's been used for editing in perhaps 5 years as mentioned. Thanks for pointing me to the correct way to disclose, which I'll add to the existing disclosures I'd written.

I just want to reiterate that I did not set out to deceive or hide and instead have quickly reached out to apologise and correct, and have responded to feedback and challenge. And similarly my edits which led to the concerns were more neutral in tone than those another editor took out - again me seeking to learn from feedback.

Anyhow I'm sure you're bored of dealing with my errors by now! Thank you for taking the time to outline the policies to read and the steps to take to contribute. I'll take a look at these and take on board. Have a good evening. Dannyazul23 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add - I've tried adding the suggested wording on my talk page but I'm seemingly blocked from doing so. Dannyazul23 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: there isn't enough for a CU block but the account is still a WP:SPA with COI concerns, so I suggested {{2nd chance}}. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm trying to edit my user page to add the paid disclosure you helpfully advised me to. But it says I'm blocked from editing it. Not sure what to do about that sorry. Thanks Dannyazul23 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're only able to edit your talk page while the block stands. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put here, and I'll move it there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: I've gone cross-eyed, Does this cone close? Bbb23 is the blocker. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]