User talk:Goblin Roger House

This is Goblin Roger House'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: Higher Love (band) (December 22)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Higher Love (band) 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:Higher Love (band), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Dan Petley, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Knight (musician)

January 2018

Hello Dan Petley. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Bravo Telecom, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Dan Petley. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dan Petley|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(pasted from Salvadrim's talkpage)Hello Salvidrim, nice to hear from you. I understand your concerns but I'm quite new here and wanted a challenge, so I found a page to "neutralise" just to see if it was something I could get my teeth into. I realise now that this company seems to have had lots of issues so I've probably chosen too big a bonfire to walk into... However, all links were found using google. I'm pretty sure it no longer reads as an advert?

I work as an artist and am getting involved with Wikipedia editing because I'm working on a project where experience in an online community as an outsider is part of my research so please be gentle with me! I normally work on community art projects in the UK but am planning to make a worldwide digital collaborative project over the next couple of years... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Petley (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

As for Peter Knight I'm just a fan. My brother introduced me to his stuff when I was considering moving to Australia many years ago (when I was more active in sound art). It bothered me for years that he didn't have a page on Wikipedia, so since I've taught myself how to code I thought I'd create his page as my first major project. Seriously, just a fan. I'm likely to make lots of pages for bands and artists who I don't think are properly represented on Wikipedia whenever I have a lag in my other jobs. Feel free to give me awkward projects to work on, I love a challenge and want to communicate with lots of people on here and keep improving my skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Petley (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to Sign[edit source]

So sorry I forgot to sign those last two messages, my apologies Dan Petley (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for responding. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!

I saw you wrote the article on Michele Macfarlane. I wrote the one on Sky Watch. I made a few minor changes to her article and explained them in the edit summary, but am explaining at more length here. I removed the places where she got the awards from the infobox because for Saddlebreds the only place they can get a World's Championship is at the World's Championship Horse Show. Infoboxes are also so small it's hard to list a lot of detail there. I also changed her from equestrian to horse trainer; an equestrian is normally somebody in the three Olympic disciplines, jumping, eventing or dressage, who often don't train their own horses or anybody else's. Also, the official title for a horse winning the World's Championship Horse Show is either World's Champion or World's Grand Champion, so I changed those too. The other changes were minor, like removing italics from names, which is a Wikipedia policy. Saddle seat is two words and not capitalized. At some point I'd recommend making the career section all prose, since that's what makes her notable. A lot of detail can be put in, describing how she began working with Sky Watch, etc (see Elisabeth Goth or Redd Crabtree for ideas). I don't want you to think I'm lecturing, but some of this you need to know if you continue writing articles, which I hope you do. I've written over 130 of them and have at least 35-40 more planned. ☺ I wrote everything that's linked on List of World Grand Champion Tennessee Walking Horses and am planning to do the rest of them. Anyway, if you want to know anything, you can reply back here or post something on my talk (neigh) page. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thanks White Arabian Filly. Lovely to read your amazingly constructive message, it's been a big confidence boost to have guidance from someone so experienced! Yes to all of the above basically, I'm planning to make more pages about people linked to Macfarlane (my brother interviewed her about Jess "Longshot" Conley so it's possible I may have horse questions soon). Dan Petley (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Writing articles about related people/horses is something I often do too, because you often find references for one when looking up another. We have several horsey editors at WikiProject Equine who each have a topic or two we like to focus on specifically, but we often collaborate on articles as well or do general cleanup. It is amazing how many articles don't exist. I have done maybe 10-15 Saddlebred horses and rider articles, but I am more familiar with the Tennessee Walking Horse industry because Saddlebreds lost much of their popularity here in the 60s when the Racking Horse started to gain traction. There are for sure a lot of horses and people who are notable and don't have articles yet. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katharina Detzel (February 22)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Sorry, you've done a great job with what little there is, but as you write, there just isn't much available about this person or her work. We need multiple in-depth reliable sources focusing on the subject, these sources aren't that.

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:Katharina Detzel 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:Katharina Detzel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GRuban (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jackson Ribler

The article Jackson Ribler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. Pretty sure this kid will be something, but now - TOOSOON.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Jackson Ribler

Hi, I'm Cwmhiraeth. Dan Petley, thanks for creating Jackson Ribler!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Appears to have been edited by the subject himself and probably by a number of his friends.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Jackson Ribler

Hello, Dan Petley,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Jackson Ribler should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Ribler .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jackson Ribler

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 Jackson Ribler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Kirbanzo (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I find this disappointing but I understand the 'too soon' challenge... I'm sure I can try again in a few years when he's achieved even more things. Dan Petley (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Petley. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, 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.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I don't mind being blocked tonight because I don't really have any time to do any edits...... however I really would like to clear my name! I have a lot of interests and haven't settled on writing about one subject yet... when I started getting back into editing in the winter I decided to have two logins because I wanted to contest some edits that I'd (perhaps wrongly) become convinced were a bit shady on the Naveen Jain page... I expected the login I used to get a lot of attention for this. It turns out I was right, so that became my experimental login where I'd make edits for random things that I thought we're more... contestable? Because I'm NOT a paid editor, I felt having my every move on that login watched by a lot of people would be an interesting dynamic that would improve my editing skills. My main login here, however is where I generally make edits for things relating to my career (the arts). You've called out my interest in some New York creatives on my other login (think I accidentally started editing this job on the wrong login actually)... But Sonya Sklaroff is a legend, I've always loved her city-scapes and wanted to make her page less promotional and more professional sounding... I think I succeeded! Artists are more international these days so I take an interest in worldwide players. I would never do paid editing! It would be too much stress! I make edits because I believe in Wikipedia, have always found it useful and want to contribute to sharing my knowledge and interests. Thanks for listening, hopefully this has cleared a few things up Dan Petley (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Both accounts edited Sonya Sklaroff. I think it'd be best if you stuck with one account, to avoid any further violations of WP:SOCK. And I echo the concerns raised below, by Berean Hunter. Yamla (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2018 (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.

Not convincing. WP:VALIDALT requires that you identify alternate accounts clearly which you didn't do. You have a conflict of interest which is apparent - whether it is undisclosed paid editing or some other form of COI. You created one account a month after the other and claimed on it that you hadn't edited in years when you had been editing a month.

What is your affiliation with Wikibagel?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh dear, how disappointing. Well, you guys know the rules I guess and I'm always happy to follow them. Please tell me why you think I have an affiliation with Wikibagel Dan Petley (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please answer the question.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no affiliation with anyone else on Wikipedia, I was only using Dan Petley and Trufflegoblin and didn't realise this was against the rules. I feel annoyed at myself to have wasted so much volunteer time. I'm really sorry but I don't know who Wikibagel is. If I did I would tell you. I've never been paid for the time I spend on Wikipedia and wouldn't want to be because I enjoy making pages on here. As I have said before, it was an online community I was interested in exploring because I'd previously never had the time to contribute anything of any use to anyone. Dan Petley (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, it is clear to me that both this account and its sock were freelancing. The note above about "this job" makes that all the more clear.

Dan, there is a whole ecosystem of paid editing around and in Wikipedia. There are "white hat" editors who disclose what they are doing and follow the COI guideline, and we get some great contributions from them. There are also "black hat" paid editors who lie and sneak around and harm the integrity of WP and waste the time of volunteers. Volunteer time is the lifeblood of Wikipedia.

It is extremely unlikely that you are going to be unblocked, with the the tack you are taking. It is clear that you know how to make sockpuppets, so maybe you will keep doing that. We will end up wasting more time cleaning up after you.

If you want to try a better tack, you could disclose what you have been doing and all the accounts you have been using, for starters. Then please ask about what the community expects of paid editors, consider the response you get, and agree to follow that. Then ask to be unblocked. Otherwise this is just banging your head against the wall and taking up yet more of our time. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through my history and found two pages that may fit under conflict of interest. One for a friend, one for a business. Not for payment because this would be totally against Wikipedia and I've been enjoying making and editing pages here and have massive respect for the community, which I just want to keep getting better at supporting. The jobs (yes I do use this term for things I do for pleasure, such as gardening, cooking and painting, these are all "jobs" that need to be done... sorry if this made me sound dodgy. A habit I got from my Mother!) were my own personal experiments for people with whom I had an affiliation that breached the CoI rules. I'm sure you'd agree that no one in their right mind would have paid for what I did for them! They were both taken down because they didn't fit the requirements of notability. One was the law firm of an MP who I've met a number of times called Marjinder Kang... I wanted to make a page for his business Kang Solicitors because I find him such an interesting guy and felt his business could make a good page despite lack of citations and make him more Googleable... The other was for Bravo Tel, I'd called into them for help on holiday and they mentioned their site had been flagged to be taken down. They offered me money and I refused then tried fixing the page because I wanted to see if I had the kudos to do this. If these examples are conflict of interest I'm really sorry and am glad both these pages were taken down. I think all the other pages I have made have been useful and well put together. Through watching how each page has been tweaked after my initial construction I have learnt how to make each page better than the last. I have a genuine personal interest in the subject of each page I have made, whether this be fandom or increasing visibility of something culturally significant. I have been accused of COI mainly for making pages for businesses so I'm happy to not make any more pages like this if my login is unblocked. I seriously have no interest in taking money for Wikipedia pages, neither with a black or white hat! I really hope you let me continue to contribute to your community Dan Petley (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not identified all the accounts you created and used, and what you say here is still not a credible explanation for pages like Joe's Basecamp and Draft:Joe's Basecamp. The desire to make the MP "more Googleable" and to "increase the visibility" of other topics, is an abuse of WP for advertising and promotion, and explicitly so per WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion -- many paid editors view it this way and it is fundamentally misguided. WP was created to share knowledge, and lots of people try to hijack our success in attracting readers who want to learn, in order to try to advertise to them. This is exploitation, like dumping industrial waste in a national forest. You are also consistently describing doing "experiments" and this is also an abuse of your editing privileges.

Editing privileges are granted to all comers, and people can keep them as long as they don't abuse them. You continue to waste our time. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins I understand the kindness of the initial time-limited TBAN but this is appearing to be less and less appropriate here. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above and don't want to abuse the privilege of having the ability to edit here. I have explained my choice to make a page for Joe's Basecamp previously and I wouldn't have submitted it for review if my intentions were not in keeping with WP. My confession of things I have done wrong has been made in the hope you see that I can be better and show the WP community the respect it deserves. I've learned a lot in my time seriously editing here and have made very few mistakes... all of which I have been very upfront about above. I intend to continue getting better and more useful to the community. I request lenience in your decision and still have fingers crossed you'll let me continue editing. Dan Petley (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and I absolutely swear that I've only been using Dan Petley and Trufflegoblin Dan Petley (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (William Eyton-Jones) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating William Eyton-Jones, Dan Petley!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Could be a good candidate for a 'Did You Know...? spot, if you're interested in pursuing that.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi Dan - see my reply to you on my talk page. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Knight, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Broadford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Jessica Rosemary Shepherd) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jessica Rosemary Shepherd, Goblin Roger House!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

As a herbarium curator and botanical author myself, I was also quite interested in this article. However, it is far too detailed, over referenced. I struggled to some extent with her notability. Please cut down the repeat references and trivia. We don't need to know where she lives or what the name of her cat is, for example. We just need one reference for each key fact.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Jessica Rosemary Shepherd - problems - your thoughts about this?

Hi Goblin Roger House,
Quite frankly in its current form this article reads more like a fan site than an encyclopedia article. Were this article was nominated for speedy deletion under the WP:G11 criterion, I would most probably agree with deletion as it is a page " exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION"
Looking at the references:

https://www.stephenongpin.com/object/791190/0/030320161305-cabbage-leaf-brassica is from commercial art dealer's website. This simply evidences that Ms Shepherd is a commercial artist
https://partners.vice.com/stichting-bloemenbureau-holland/favouriteflower/news/the-new-wave-of-insta-creatives-using-flowers-in-their-art/ - a mention of Ms Shepherd noted as "Partner Content" of the Vice (magazine), not that magazine itself.

And so on. Your thoughts about this? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shirt58, thanks for your message, I agree the 'partner content' Vice magazine reference is a bit fishy and the commercial art dealer citation can be done away with. I'm happy to remove anything that seems too commercial. As someone who has talked to a lot of illustrators in the past I know that botanical illustration has a reputation for being soulless, but this is definitely unfair. The academic obsession that accompanies this kind of work is more dedicated than a lot of other disciplines. I think while I was writing it I got a bit too into it and probably went overboard with citations... I'll cut these back today. I've been curious about this kind of work for a while and the only botanical painters represented on Wikipedia died over 100 years ago so I chose a book from my mother's shelf and started writing.Goblin Roger House (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

John Eyton-Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arthur Eyton-Jones

William Eyton-Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arthur Eyton-Jones

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Arthur David Eyton-Jones

Hi, I'm Rosguill. Goblin Roger House, thanks for creating Arthur David Eyton-Jones!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article doesn't really keep with the encyclopedic tone recommended on Wikipedia, in particular because of the extremely detailed descriptions of Eyton-Jones's involvement in the Special Air Service. It also contains a large amount of uncited content which may run afoul of Wikipedia's policies on original research. It could also use some copy editing for grammar and section organization.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Rosguill^talk 23:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rosguill, yes I probably got a bit carried away with Arthur David Eyton-Jones, it's a pretty interesting story! Thanks for drawing my attention to it... I'll cut it back and make sure any uncited content is done away with. Goblin Roger House (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Thomas Eyton-Jones) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Thomas Eyton-Jones, Goblin Roger House!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Goblin Roger House. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing disclosure required

Hello Goblin Roger House. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Goblin Roger House. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Goblin Roger House|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GSS, I never have and never will receive money for creating or editing Wikipedia pages and following some early misunderstandings about Wikipedia editing I never make pages for people who I have met in real life. I enjoy making information that I have found interesting accessible to other people because this is what I have always used Wikipedia for, however these days I even try not to make pages that could cross the 'fandom' threshold because I want to follow the rules and be as un-biassed as possible! Please give me guidance on how to improve the pages that have been flagged, because I'm proud of all the pages I have made (and edited) and want them to be as useful and informative as possible. I'm also proud to learn and improve at this voluntary pass-time as it gives me a chance to be a part of something important outside of my busy working life. Of course, paid editing would be stressful, exactly what I don't need! Goblin Roger House (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information from your upwork profile suggests otherwise. Blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:44, 26 November 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please re-read the Upwork profile quoted by Yunshui above. I work as a freelancer for artists and creative people. I have a tag on my Upwork site that says "Wikipedia" because I know Wikipedia well enough to tell people that advertise those jobs that they can't pay for editing. Instead I approach those clients and tell them how to develop a more convincing media presence (this includes helping them to write better profiles on LinkedIn and social media and brainstorming future projects that will generate legitimate media attention that could lead to them legitimately belonging on Wikipedia). Read my feedback. I get consistently high feedback on Upwork because I'm honest and genuinely care about creative people developing a respectable public profile. My background is in the art world so I enjoy being a mentor to artists and public figures and taking their stories seriously, which includes telling them that money is not the way to get on Wikipedia, whereas hard work and reaching an audience is! I genuinely wouldn't want to try making a living showing disrespect to the Wikipedia platform, so please reconsider my block. Thanks for your time.

Decline reason:

As per below. Yamla (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2018 (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.

At least four of the articles you have created (Draft:Ed Eisen (moved to draft from article space), Joe's Basecamp (created by one of your sockpuppets and deleted under G11), Joe Bonington (also created by a sock) and Sue Samuels) were advertised on Upwork prior to your creation of them, and your Upwork profile contains at least one Wikipedia work in progress and at least one completed Wikipedia job which has been reviewed. Evidently your clients don't listen too hard when you tell them that money doesn't buy a presence on Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ed Eisen

Hello, Goblin Roger House. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ed Eisen".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alien Presence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alien Presence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Presence until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BOVINEBOY2008 23:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of First Kill (album)

The article First Kill (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable album

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of First Kill (album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First Kill (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Kill (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Justi yaya 15:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]