User talk:Michellecharterup

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of employment

I changed the template on your userpage from {{UserboxCOI}} to {{paid}}. The latter is the proper template to use when disclosing that you are writing on behalf of your employer. Your transparency in this regard is appreciated, and thank you for doing so voluntarily. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the edit and the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia! Michellecharterup (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:CharterUP has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:CharterUP. Thanks! UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CharterUP (June 2)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:CharterUP 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.

Greenman (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michellecharterup! 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! Greenman (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CharterUP has been accepted

CharterUP, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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!

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CharterUP for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CharterUP, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CharterUP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing that you are being paid to spam does not give you a license to do so. Paid editors are very strongly recommended not to edit the articles they are paid for directly, a recommendation you have ignored. Further, bludgeoning the AFD of the article you were paid to write is a waste of the community’s time, per Wikipedia:PAIDTALK. You are being paid to be here, but at this time, your contributions are not an asset to this project, so I am removing your editing privileges rather than permit you to continue spamming and wasting the most precious resource this project has, the time of uninvolved volunteer editors. Courcelles (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to first address the direct reason for the block. Though they are almost negligible given the effort that some of the editors in this discussion have dedicated to Wikipedia, I would like to note my contributions beyond my employer: hearing loss [1], Open Source Applications Foundation [2] and Forest Park High School [3] pages. More importantly, though, I'd like to apologize for any misunderstandings and for any instances where my actions may have wasted the community’s time. I am sincerely sorry if my activities have been intrusive or disruptive. I wish to clarify that I had already withdrawn from the Articles for Deletion (AFD) debate.[4] The only time I resumed in the debate was in response to a mention from another user[5], as well as to open discussion on the Administrators’ Incident Noticeboard following accusations from a user who suggested my involvement in another article[6]. As we know now, those allegations were misplaced and I am grateful that the user in question recognized the error and rectified their statement. In relation to the CharterUP article, I acknowledge that my professional relationship with the subject matter creates a perceived bias that is not conducive to the Wikipedia community’s goals. I'd like to mention here that another user, during the deletion discussion, indicated it was my responsibility to undertake edits to make the article less promotional.[7] It was in response to this advice that I continued with my contributions. I can acknowledge that my attempts to neutralize language – which were made in WP:GOODFAITH – may not have brought the article any closer to a neutral POV. If it's deemed inappropriate for paid editors to engage in the deletion discussions, please advise the best way to delete my contributions to the debate thus far. I commit to abstaining from any further edits to the CharterUP article or deletion discussion unless I am advised otherwise. I fully respect the decision of the community and commit to understanding and complying with the guidelines. Michellecharterup (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request gives me no confidence that you have properly understood the reason for the block. You were blocked for introducing obviously promotional text into articles. You say that you did that in good faith, and I am willing to believe that, and that you genuinely thought that you were improving the neutrality of those articles; however, the fact that you thought that rather strongly implies that you are unable to distinguish between encyclopedic writing and advertising copy, which is not a good fit with this project and is just going to waste more of our contributors' time. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:16, 27 June 2023 (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.