User talk:NutriHarvest

Your submission at Articles for creation: NutriHarvest (December 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Qcne were: 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:NutriHarvest 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.

qcne (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, NutriHarvest! 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! qcne (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "NutriHarvest", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because usernames must represent an individual, not an organization. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I should stress that your name is a fairly blatant violation of the username policy, and if you continue to use it you almost certainly will be blocked, so you really should change it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:NutriHarvest

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 Draft:NutriHarvest, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Johnj1995 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account has been blocked from editing because your username gives the impression that the account represents a group, team, club, organization, company, product, department, or website. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have chosen a new username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change to this account.

• To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
• If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page (this page): {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Important items to note:

• The new username that you choose must represent you as an individual person, and it must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.
  • You are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it also identifies you individually. Examples include: "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".
• The new username you choose cannot already be taken and used by another account. You can search here to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns, "There is no global account for [username]", that means it is available.

Appeals: If your username does not represent a group, organization, department, website, or other entity described above, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page (this page): {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 

Thank you. WaggersTALK 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Waggers: I made the decision, as an admin, to discuss rather than block this user. That was two days ago and they've not edited since. I'm therefore struggling to see what legitimate preventative purpose this block serves. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

They were reported to UAA by another user and I reviewed that report as an admin. I saw on the talk page that you had attempted to engage and they had not replied, and in that 48 hour period have not made an effort to put in a username change request. I therefore decided a block was in order to prevent leaving this as an indefinitely open WP:SLEEPER account that clearly violates our username policy and has only been used for advertising/promotion. If the person using this account genuinely wishes to contribute to Wikipedia they will need to do so under a different account name and there are links in the block template above that give them the opportunity to either create a new account or request a username change for this one. WaggersTALK 09:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Waggers: I'm completely with Beeblebrox On this. Blocking an account which has not recently been used purely on the basis of a hypothetical idea that it might at some future time be used in an unacceptable way, with no evidence whatever that it is likely to be, is about as far out of line with the whole spirit of the blocking policy as it gets. Consider, for example, the following quotes from that policy: (1) "Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior..." Imminent or continuing? Present? No, none of those three: just hypothetically possible at some unspecified time in the future, with no evidence that it is likely. (2) "In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate." ... well, that is spot on.

I also support the line that Beeblebrox had made a decision, as an administrator, how to deal with the case, and you, knowing that (assuming you do actually read any previous messages to a new editor before considering blocking) decided to unilaterally overturn that decision. There seems to be a widespread view that a decision by an administrator to deal with a matter by an administrative action such as blocking is more or less inviolate, but a decision to deal with a matter by other means can freely be ignored, although the one is as much an administrative decision as the other. The effect of that view is that when two administrators have different views, the one who wants to block always gets their way. Apart from the fact that common sense says that such biasing towards always blocking is unreasonable, it also flies directly in the face of the blocking policy: when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. There must be doubt if at least one other administrator has already indicated a contrary view.

I suggest you consider reverting the block. JBW (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I shall revert the block, but as I said above, this was not a unilateral decision; a request to block the user was lodged at UAA and I agreed to that request. That takes two users, not one. I take it both you and Beeblebrox will be watching this account carefully for future activity?

It is standard practice, indeed a longstanding convention, to block accounts that have BOTH edited promotionally AND have a promotional username. That is laid out clearly in the username policy: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and are often blocked much sooner than users who engage in only one of the two behaviors."

We get scores of these types of accounts with this type of activity every single day and I'd be interested in why this particular user account is being treated differently from that convention. It's abundantly clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia and, while I'll revert the block as requested, I still hold the view that this account should remain blocked. WaggersTALK 12:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason is that myself and quite a number of other admins have come to question the usefulness of that approach, which I readily admit I followed myself for many years. The tendency to immediately block these accounts is a holdover from the days when brand-new accounts could still create articles, that hasn't been the case in may years, yet we keep using the processes developed during that time even when the user has made no edits that the reader is ever going to see. I also came here from a UAA report, if it was reported again, after I took action, that user needs to be reminded that if an admin is discussing a username with a user, and that user has made no recent edits, they should not be reported a second time. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 19:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)