User talk:Marillajoe

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).

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

Request reason:

This account is valid for wikimedia commons, where it is being used to establish a formal organisational repository of images. We wish to issue a complaint against the administrator %timtrent, who is hounding and harassing us and preventing us uploading images for no good reason except bullying and nastiness. However, we cant use any talk pages to do this, as we are blocked. Advice please?

Decline reason:

Well, you were asked to submit a new username when you were blocked, which you haven't. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2022 (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.

Marillajoe (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)marillajoer[reply]

First, I am not an administrator. Second I am not hounding you, not your colleague. Third, Wikimedia Commons is entirely separate form Wikipedia and has different policies.

Your duty is encapsulated in WP:AGF, and your and your colleague's accusations are bad form. I have no interest in whether you are unblocked or remain blocked, but please do not use your talk page privileges to make accusations 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Marillajoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that comments on talk pages should appear in chronological order, top to bottom, so it would useful if you could edit the talk page you have just added to. Thanks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Marillajoe! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:42, Saturday, February 26, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Marillajoe! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:51, Saturday, February 26, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Reversion

Sorry for reverting your extensive changes to Dorothy Hewitt, but they were full of nowiki links and various stylistic errors. Your work is recoverable via article history, and I suggest that you copy it into your sandbox and tidy it up there first. Sorry but it is too late for me to provide detailed guidance now. A couple of minor style things to note: people are referred to by their surnames, not first names, and per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY it is not necessary to clutter the lead with citations, so long as the content is cited in the body. I'll see if I have time to have a look tomorrow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the easy part, laterthanyouthink, the hard bit (second half) is coming!

As stated, the existing entry is full of errors and can only be described as 'lame' in emphasis, content and execution. So we would like to get this right.

1. Surname is easily fixed.

2. Some of the citations in the lead are not used elsewhere. They are strong but impressive opinions that really need citations. We refer to:

a) 'grande dame of Australian literature' (Newspaper but often repeated)

b) 'one of the greatest Australian writers of her generation' (needs citation)

c) 'explored hidden truths and broke all the rules' (good summary of all the controversies - yet to be listed - but is an actual citation)

d) 'resonated with passion and conviction'. Summary of general style, ditto.

Rest of links can can go.

We see that it is considered OK to have Wikipedia crossreferences (many) in the lead. Is it only citations that are frowned on?

3. Nowiki links? We presume these are dud links. They are all good and current. We have found the sandbox and will fix there.

4. Vanity press? "Unravelling the Code: The Coads and Coodes of Cornwall" is a ten year old substantial reference work, still selling well. It is printed but not published or sourced by lulu. It is also sold on Amazon. The short article on Hewett and her ancestors is one of many in the book and contains some material not available elsewhere. We can remove the lulu link, if that will help.

We are professional editors and publishers, but we have a lot to learn here. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.

PS Hewett not Hewitt. Marillajoe (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We eventually worked out how to use the sandbox thx. When we copied it there the nowikis disappeared. We have also tended to use the refs as footnotes, but see they are intended for one reference only, without explanatory text, and there is a separate footnote facility.

Only half the new article is there. Should we put the entire changed article into the sandbox before submitting? There are also pictures to go in.

In the meantime we would greatly appreciate any other tips or stylistic problems you can see. Marillajoe (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the delay but have just seen the email notification on my tablet, having been busy with something else on wiki earlier, and also got a positive Covid test, so somewhat distracted. (If you use WP:PING then I'm likely to be alerted more quickly.) When I get back to the computer in a while I'll type a proper response to your questions - it's just too slow and cumbersome on my little tablet! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was hoping to be able to find your copy in your sandbox, but I can't see this version of the article, which is what you could use as your basis there to tidy up the issues. I will try to be brief and give you some pointers. I don't have issue with what you've written, but how it's presented, per Wikipedia conventions.

1. Sorry about the misspelling - my typo or autopredict error!

2. Those kinds of praises don't belong in the lead and arguably anywhere else; some could be added to the Recognition section, but there should be nothing in the lead that is not repeated in the body, and also you need to beware of WP:PUFFERY or WP:PEACOCK. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts.

3. I don't know why your raw version is full of nowikis; I think that these don't show in sandboxes, but need to be removed before saving to mainspace, else links will not be displayed as live links. Also, try to avoid WP:BAREURLs. I find this tool really useful for creating citations, although please be aware that the formatted citations must always be checked afterwards to match the source, as it's not perfect and sometimes produces odd authors and suchlike.

4. I'm not sure what this refers to exactly, but see that you have included a link to lulu.com in your citations. I have encountered this before it appears that it is blacklisted as spam. I had a quick look and found this old discussion about it. I see that that source is on Academia, which I don't think is blacklisted, although does need a signin (I use Google); else use Google Books, even though you can't see the content there. (It is perfectly acceptable not to have an online link to a hardcopy book, although generally preferable if you can fine one.) And btw the Citer tool works pretty well for urls from Google Books.

I hope these help. I have not reviewed the article for content at all at this point - just made note of these style issues. I see that the article is rather lacking in in-line citations, although the content for those marked sentences may well exist in one of the sources listed under References. This is a little annoying and can take a lot of work to fix up retrospectively, hence best practice is to always cite inline. Just a few other things... You may be interested in joining the Biography project, and for Australian topics, it's useful to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, which has a noticeboard where you can ask questions. It's often quicker to get an answer on something on a page that more than one editor is likely to see (also, the general Wikipdia help pages, linked to above). But if you can tidy up the nowikis and ensure (using Preview before saving) that your links and citations are showing correctly, I'm happy to have another look. It can be a slow and tedious process, and there is lots to learn, however well we write on other platforms! I am still learning and I've been around quite a while (and still get things wrong!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I don't know how much more you are intending to add, but just also be aware of WP:TMI - it's nowhere near that yet, but keep in mind encyclopaedic tone, not a literary essay, etc. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK tyvm for all your help, the 'puffery' can go. We'll just think 'encyclopedia': we have contributed to those before.

The many nowikis occurred when we cut and pasted [[ ]] from Word, but these 'inline' citations all registered when it was repasted into sandbox. We have also worked out how to reference chapters in edited books now.

Regarding the 'blacklisted' but useful source - it's catalogued at the National Library and we'll use that reference.

Re excess detail - yes we plan to put a couple of the main items up separately, but see there is quite a delay for new entries.

We will now put up the entire piece on sandbox and will let you know when it's there and ready.

Thanks for the project suggestions too, we'll join! Marillajoe (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi laterthanyouthink

It's taken a long while but we finally have a draft up on Marillajoe/sandbox. It's almost a complete replacement. We've worked out how to add pictures and efn's. Again, we'd greatly appreciate if you could look at what is now a substantial pieces of work. Marillajoe (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complete replacements are not accepted by reviewers. Instead you must form consensus for incorporation of all or part of your draft at the existing article's talk page. That consensus can include wholesale replacement, but it must be built and adhered to.

I am concerned about your use of the first person plural your message above - We will now put up the entire piece on sandbox. Wikipedia has a "one perosn, one account" rule

@Laterthanyouthink fyi. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have set the discussion up via the merge banners om source and target draft and article. Over to you to form the consensus Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, it's not easy to see the distinction between "complete replacement" and "consensus for wholesale replacement that must be built and adhered to". What does this mean in practice? We have to feed in the changes a section or a sentence at a time?

The reason for the change, as outlined above, is that the existing article is full of errors, and is "lame" compared with other encyclopedia articles and short biographies on the subject.

That is news to us that one cannot operate as a duo. We have been very transparent about this since the beginning and it is listed on our description. We have made a number of changes to various pages, as well as this large article. What do you suggest? Marillajoe (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you need for form consensus for the changes. It means you may not just make what are seen as cavalier replacements. If in doubt ask at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Regarding the shared use of accounts, I have explained below what you should do. Wikipedia's rules about account usage are to ensure the copyright audit trail is preserved. That you made it clear for the outset is, I am afraid, of no use in preventing this from being the rule. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dorothy Hewett (March 20)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Dorothy Hewett instead.

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:Dorothy Hewett 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:Dorothy Hewett, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. As this is an almost complete replacement, I was told by reviewer #laterthanyouthink to put it on our sandbox for testing. There's no indication on the sandbox that this is only for new articles.

By the way, if you have a number of new articles to submit, as we do, what is the best way to handle this? Presumably we would have to remove one from the sandbox before doing others. Marillajoe (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marillajoe! Having an article 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! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One editor, one account

Your statement here shows that this account is shared between one Marilla and one Joe declares that this account is being used by two people. This is against the rules on all Wikimedia Foundation sites. You need, at once, to desist from account sharing. Continuing to share accounts will result in the loss of editing privileges, and thus defeat your objective of creating your mother's biography here.

This was likely to be an innocent error, nonetheless you are required to take action to cease sharing one account.

The simplest action is to abandon this account and create two new ones, one for Marilla and the other for Joe. However, once that is done, do not be tempted to use this abandoned account. This is termed sockpupptery and will result in a block Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, Marillajoe, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have selected a new username that meets the username policy guidelines, which are summarized below.

Per the username policy, a username should represent an individual and should not: represent a group or organization; be promotional; be misleading (such as indicating possession of special user rights or being a "Bot" account (unless approved for such purposes)); be offensive or otherwise disruptive. However, a username that contains the name of a organization and also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87" is allowed, though, among others, the guidance on conflict of interest and the policy of paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over 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. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Your requested new username cannot already be in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice.

Each Wikipedia account is for one person only, and an account shared among two people is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK we will create several new usernames and conduct ongoing revisions accordingly. Marillajoe (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how many of you there are? Be aware that "one editor - one account" works both ways. While there are limited circumstances in which one person may hold more than one account, those circumstances are extremely limited. Please see WP:MULTIPLE and be sure you understand what is and is not allowed. If you are in any doubt at all please ask Cullen328 before taking action Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated from the beginning, two people. Marilla and Joe. Both professional editors and publishers, interested in different topics. Convenient to collaborate for various reasons - to combine different insights, and especially to handle the difficult issue of feminism, where Joe has the information, and Marilla has the credibility. We also have a publishing business together, so could in theory proceed on that basis - but looks like it is more trouble than it is worth.

We suspect your policy as stated has more to do with legal concerns than convenience. Fair enough.

Anyway, it's cancelled now, so much for being frank and honest sigh. We can't even get onto our sandbox to copy the existing draft to another sandbox, or so that #laterthanyouthink can evaluate our first effort, as he/she originally offered. 2001:8003:2833:9301:D182:F9A7:F253:2483 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft still exists at Draft:Dorothy Hewett and you can continue to work on it with your new accounts. It is in draft space not sandbox space. It would not be wise to copy it somewhere else on Wikipedia. There is no benefit to that and potential problems. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement OK we will create several new usernames is what caused my question. Several is not the same as two. You also should note that A publishing Business together may not register an account. You should note further the elephant in the room, which is WP:COI.

Play it straight and simple. The two of you should register one account each, and never, not ever, use the other's account, even if in the same room or on the same computer.

You say We suspect your policy as stated has more to do with legal concerns than convenience. Fair enough. Honestly? Not interested. If you want to change the rules, once you have your new accounts either or both of you may seek to change those rules by making a proposal at WP:VPP. Far better to work within what is present.

You also say so much for being frank and honest sigh Thank you for your honesty. Now please work with the rules. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Dorothy Hewett has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Dorothy Hewett. Thanks! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not much was happening. Waiting to hear about the pictures. I'll look forward to hearing what the editors think. I'll be taking over the further editing solo in my own account, in line with Wikipedia policy (Marilla). 2001:8003:2833:9301:D3B:29E4:5B98:4043 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Dorothy Hewett

Hello, Marillajoe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dorothy Hewett".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz as far as I know all changes were made many moons ago under the new username. We were unable to use this username as it was/is blocked 2001:8003:2833:9301:5CC1:8A8E:F14F:2C7B (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]