User talk:Grantheadifen

Your submission at Articles for creation: NauticEd International Sailing School (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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:NauticEd International Sailing School and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Grantheadifen, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:NauticEd International Sailing School concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:NauticEd International Sailing School, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:NauticEd International Sailing School

Hello, Grantheadifen. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "NauticEd International Sailing School".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:NauticEd International Sailing School}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Grantheadifen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was NauticEd, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wikishovel (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, Grantheadifen, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Seliegh (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NauticEd moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to NauticEd. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your communications. Years ago I attempted to put up a page about NauticEd. I didn't know bery much about the rules back then - and while the article was factual - as pointed out by the original reviewer it was probably a bit promotional and didn't reference articles from recognized sources - fair enough. Fast forward to now - I hired a professional who knows all the rules to follow properly to post the article. I do believe he did a factual and non promotional job as well as referencing many many articles and the United States Coast Guard etc speaking to the credibility of my company. I did not edit his work for good reason and let him post it. There was no malintent - simply to follow the factual rules and have someone who knows the rules to do it properly.

As far as I know I have one account GrantHeadifen (that's my name). The company I own is NauticEd. I don't think that NauticEd has an account. i.e. I don't have multiple accounts.

Please let me know if in doing this I have not followed proper protocol. If there is anything else I need to do let me know. I do see that you said I should ask for a review of the page for it's factual content - can I do that here in this message? Or is there a proper procedure for requesting a review?

Thanks Very much

Grant Grantheadifen (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for clarifying the situation, and it's clear that you had no intention of getting around any Wikipedia policies. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which explains why and how you and your hired editor User:Seliegh need to formally disclose the WP: Conflict of interest.

To get the article reviewed, you or Seliegh only need to click the button on the draft that says "Submit your article for review". Wikishovel (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Very appreciated. We did get a notice from Wikipedia now that the article is in review and that it will take 3-4 months. Whew! It is a short article with many references to the credibility of NauticEd including US Coast Guard. Is there any way to let the reviewers know this so that they can move it up the time pipeline? Just asking not pushing in anyway. Thanks again Grant Grantheadifen (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NauticEd has been accepted

NauticEd, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Conyo14 (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock

Hello, I was blocked apparently by JimfBleak for apparent spam.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have made no posts anywhere in Wikipedia for over 10 years except to have my page posted which was recently accepted and wholly legitimate - but other than that I have made zero comments, posts, let alone spam. Please provide any comments you believe where I have spammed. I will change my password incase I have been hacked.

Decline reason:

In May and July of this year, you worked on a now deleted article, NauticEd. This was speedily deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Yamla (talk) 19:56, 4 September 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.

Note that you also participated in a discussion here on this very page in July. See User_talk:Grantheadifen#July_2024. --Yamla (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

The page that was deleted was NOT Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was company information. There are many articles on here about various companies. In particular this was a pure informational article about NauticEd which is a legitimate company recognized by the United States Coast Guard. TO BLOCK ME IS A BIT RADICAL. Merely if you thought there was advertising in the article it would be simple to say tone this down or what ever. In no way was it spam. Grantheadifen (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The page that was deleted was NOT Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was company information. There are many articles on here about various companies. In particular this was a pure informational article about NauticEd which is a legitimate company recognized by the United States Coast Guard. TO BLOCK ME IS A BIT RADICAL. Merely if you thought there was advertising in the article it would be simple to say tone this down or what ever. In no way was it spam. [[User:Grantheadifen|Grantheadifen]] ([[User talk:Grantheadifen#top|talk]]) 18:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The page that was deleted was NOT Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was company information. There are many articles on here about various companies. In particular this was a pure informational article about NauticEd which is a legitimate company recognized by the United States Coast Guard. TO BLOCK ME IS A BIT RADICAL. Merely if you thought there was advertising in the article it would be simple to say tone this down or what ever. In no way was it spam. [[User:Grantheadifen|Grantheadifen]] ([[User talk:Grantheadifen#top|talk]]) 18:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The page that was deleted was NOT Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was company information. There are many articles on here about various companies. In particular this was a pure informational article about NauticEd which is a legitimate company recognized by the United States Coast Guard. TO BLOCK ME IS A BIT RADICAL. Merely if you thought there was advertising in the article it would be simple to say tone this down or what ever. In no way was it spam. [[User:Grantheadifen|Grantheadifen]] ([[User talk:Grantheadifen#top|talk]]) 18:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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).

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

Request reason:

Additionally, the initial page about our company that I put up was approved by one of your editors. If it was Unambiguous advertising or promotion it would have been stopped from being published. I did nothing to the page after it was published - then you blocked me for SPAMMING. How can I bee a spammer if my page was approved. You can see the history. Nothing there was SPAM and it followed the guidelines of listing a company with many 3rd party proof articles about the company NauticEd. Please unlock me and I will submit a new informational page about the company. It will not be spam and it will not be unambiguous and it will not be promotion.Grantheadifen (talk) 12:18 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please do not open more than one unblock request at a time. If you would like to add comments, please add them beneath the unblock request. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:05, 1 December 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.

Hello there, Grantheadifen! To reply to your point, it does appear that the NauticEd draft article was deleted in September 2024 due to being overly promotional, which can be seen in the page's deletion log. In July 2024, another editor moved your article from the article space to the draft space because they were concerned about a conflict of interest. However, it appears there was an earlier version of the article (Draft:NauticEd International Sailing School), which you were working on in 2014. That one appears to have been deleted as an abandoned draft. Concerning promotional edits, another deletion log shows that your user page was also deleted for being overly promotional. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through other messages on your talk page, it appears you were aware of the promotional tone of the article--at least to some degree. Additionally, you mention that NauticEd is your company. Given this, I highly recommend you review WP:COI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grantheadifen, I think you've been scammed, actually, if you hired User:Seliegh to write for you. Sorry to say. If you're planning to try again, I recommend not hiring an "expert", since they tend to be a scam that only gets worse once the article has been accepted. In some ways, you were lucky that you already had an account and were blocked - the next step is usually to try to extort you for money to "prevent" the article from being deleted, a thing no scammer can deliver on.

Since you've already disclosed your conflict of interest, you've done most of what you'd need to do to be unblocked. Do you want to try making the article again? Or do you want to be unblocked to edit for other reasons? -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be unblocked so that I can put up a simple NON promotional page on who is NauticEd the US Coast Guard authorized boating education body. I won't spam - I never have. Grantheadifen (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to contribute other content in addition to creating a Wikipedia page for your company? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - all - I have never spammed and so would like to be able to contribute as well as add a properly acceptable article following all the rules for putting up an informational no promotional page about my company. Grantheadifen (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can unblock you so you can have another try at it (and make whatever other edits you might be interested in making), but you'll need to follow the COI guidelines really strictly, since it's your own company, so:

only edit the article in draftspace (ie, at Draft:NauticEd), and submit it through AfC for approval (starting via WP:WIZARD makes this easy);
if you want to change anything in the article if it's in mainspace, use Template:Edit COI;
avoid referring to your website/company elsewhere in articles or references, unless you use Template:Edit COI;
in general use caution when writing about related topics (sailing etc) and err on the side of making requests instead of editing directly.

But I do also want to warn you that I'm not sure you'll succeed at getting an article accepted, since you have to meet a pretty tough standard - that's WP:NCORP. I don't think the previously deleted version of the article meets that standard. Have a look at WP:YESPROMO as well, which is extremely blunt but does get the point across. I can see why you think your previous draft wasn't promotional, since it's basically a list of facts - but they're facts in the spirit of "raising awareness", so that looks like promo to us. Let us know that you understand all this and if you have any other questions. -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Yes I fully understand. Would you mind please allowing me to see my old article so I can see the error in my ways. BTW I am pretty sure I did use the draft proceedure before and submitted since I got a notice that it would take 3-4 months to review before it was pubished and I do beleive it was ublished for a short while NOT by me but by the reviewing editor. Regardless - I will be very careful. Grantheadifen (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try to make the article gain and follow all the recommended rules. Wikishovel approved the initial upload as a good article. I was not scammed by user Seliegh - he did not ask for follow up money after some of your team though it was promotional - and then blocked me a a spammer. I have never spammed never will. Grantheadifen (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grantheadifen Note that providing basic "company information" is considered promotional here, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia is not a database of companies that exist, there is criteria for inclusion, called notability(of companies). Yes, there are likely many other articles about companies that themselves are likely inappropriate, such is the nature of a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and also one where policies change over time, so that what once may have been okay is no longer. It is possible for inappropriate content to get past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on others. If you want to use another article as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow other articles as suggested. Toyota and Apple and IBM are also perhaps good models to follow? Grantheadifen (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Toyota, Apple Inc., nor IBM are classified as good articles. The Toyota article specifically has a maintenance tag indicating that it relies too heavily on primary sources. You can see a list of good articles here. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see very non consistent policy here. I have reviewed the notability of companies document. The article that we originally published (approved by Wikishovel) had many references to the Notibility of NauticEd including that the US Coast Guard approved NauticEd as the ONLY education company following the American National Standards as developed by the US Coast Guard and we linked properly to the US Coast Guard and other published sources verifying the same. In contrast here is another company listed on Wikipedia in the same space that has no notability https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/American_Sailing_Association yet is it published and I don't see anyone blockng the authors for SPAM. That page is not spam. Our page was similar yet I get blocked for SPAM - even though it was approved initially by Wikishovel. I understand if some editor here thought it was promotional - sure then why not just reject it but to label me as a SPAMMER is abit over the top. All this UNLESS some one came in after me and added spam to it but surely you can give me the example of that. For that case I have changed my password. But I just don't think this is the case. Please Unblock me. I have read the good article criteria and I believe that my original article met that because wikishovel nominated it for a good article review. However - I will ensure that the new article and everything I add to wikipedia follows that process. The above article while not meeting the good article requirements is still not spam nor should the writers be blocked for spam. Please unblock me. Grantheadifen (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Grantheadifen! I understand having your articles marked as spam (or anything else) can be frustrating given the number of bad articles that currently exist on Wikipedia. Many articles, such as American Sailing Association, were created earlier in Wikipedia's existence (2007 in this case), at which point there were different guidelines for inclusion. If that page were created today, it would be moved back into the draft space. At present, I have added maintenance tags to it so other editors can improve it and/or nominate it for deletion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grantheadifen, can you clarify this bit about wikishovel nominated it for a good article review? I'm not sure what you're talking about. -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When we first wrote the article, and YeS I used a professional to write it because I knew personally I did not know all the rules and that a professional would know the proper protocol rules, the article was submitted in draft and then it was reviewed by a wikipedia editor named wikishovel. He approved it to go for final review - he said it would take 3-4 months. Which was correct. 4 months later we got an approval and it was moved by wikishovel to published. A few weeks after that I was banned for spamming. Grantheadifen (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]