Meopa

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was: 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 User:Meopa/sandbox 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to my talk page

You should put these sources in the AFD if you want to convince editors that Riz Story is notable. They don't belong on my talk page. Everymorning (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

My talk page

Please do not dump a big long list of URLs to unreliable sources on my talk page. They do not belong there and are of no help. Instead, point to the three BEST sources at the AfD debate. Your tactics will not convince experienced editors and just turn people off. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Knock it off

You're acting like a petulant child. If you want to sort this out, do it without shouting at everyone, making legal threats, and continually editing against the consensus of people who know that the hell they're doing. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Riz Story is on expedition leading a team of divers for NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in FIJI. I am a long time staff member at TogethermenT and it has been assigned to me and my staff to guard the wiki page of Mr. Story that has been in existence without question for 16 years running. We do NOT wish to do this but are merely guarding the well earned reputation of MR. Story and his extensive achievements in both music and cinema. The vandalism of the page began 2 days ago and culminated with a LOCKING of the page from myself and my staff. Then came the movement to delete Mr. Story's page despite our supplying over 100 international press examples, ranging from MTV - VARIETY - BILLBOARD - EXTRA TV - BLABBERMOUT - LOUDWIRE - etc etc. Rather unexpectedly, administrators are taking offense to our efforts to protect Mr. Story's wiki page, classifying it as "self promotion?" we provide links to everything we state about Mr. Story, and in fact have left out much of note in order to keep his page concise. Also of note is that we have not built or maintained the page (aside from important updates this year), but rather it has evolved naturally at the hands of the public. This vandalism and motion to DELETE Mr. Story has required us to go the defensive and protect Mr. Story's web presence those who seek to downplay his career.

JULIE WIESS

Julie, is it? Right. I'm glad you're using slightly less shouting than Mr Story, however there are some major issues. First - there is no sharing of accounts. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to get your own username, and every member of your staff should do the same. Second, I have tried to make it painfully clear how to go about improving the page, something which has been more or less ignored. It is not proper to just paste the same wall of text a hundred times and hope that one time it sticks. Shouting never helps. There are ways to go about things, and if you can't find your way to do them you'll just be blocked for CIR and vandalism.

Now, on to the point: the article has been nominated for deletion. Mr Story (and/or yourself) have made your point (multiple, multiple times), so until the discussion is completed I highly (really, very highly) suggest you step away from it and let the rest of the community decide. The discussion will close after a week, at which point if it is kept I am willing (for some odd reason) to work with you to improve it further.

Continually harassing people, either by posting huge walls of text, shouting, or threatening them, is really not constructive.

Finally, as I have mentioned multiple times now, please sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who is posting. And again, get your own username ;) Primefac (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll forgive us we do not know the protocol of Wikipedia - I am head of PR at TogethermenT and this not something we've had to deal with before. We are merely responding to this all out assault on Mr. Story's reputation. For example - Primfac asserted that he could not find any press for MR. STORY. we responded with a tiny fragment of the total press for Mr. Story (about 100 links, internationally) and then we got scolded for that? We re-add links regarding Mr. Story's current string of singles which have placed in the Top Ten of the BILLBOARD Hot Singles Chart (with links to the official BILLBOARD Chart page) and they are taken down by vandals who apparently question the validity of the BILLBOARD charts? They keep taking down important facts, like Mr. Story's collaboration with his artist on our label, including ETHEREAL, LILITH, KIM WHALEN, COOPER ALAN etc etc. ? Not being familiar with wiki's protocol or who we should assign the task of protecting the page, someone in the office suggested having the legal team deal with it ( NO THREAT WAS MADE ) but we have to assign someone to mop up this attack. In the end I have the job. So please let me know what I need to do to preserve this page which has been up for 16 years without question. Julie Wiess (VP of PR, TogethermenT)

First, get your own username. Second, stop posting walls of text. They're already on the AFD multiple times (check the green "hidden walls of text"). Third, step away. The discussion will happen with or without you, and honestly continually bombarding the AFD with text is not helping. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

OK - just tell us what to do. FYI, i'm "acting like a petulant child" because my job of over a decade is on the line. I have been assigned to protect Mr. Story's wiki page from his enemies and I'm merely doing my job. First the attackers say there is no press, I post a "wall" of it and now, again, I'm being told that this is the wrong thing to do? I'm accused of Yelling? you mean using capitals? Is the purpose of wikipedia to provide factual information or to learn a complicated protocol of the extremely touchy admin? If wikipedia is a factual source we would merely like to be sure that the page on Mr. Story is accurate, factual and does indeed contain his achievements in full, and not be limited and locked by his business rivals. JULIE WIESS

Okay, there seems to have been a few misunderstandings. Let me see if I can clear them up.

• No one "owns" a Wikipedia page. Anyone can edit any page, and we do our best to ensure that pages are factually accurate and neutral in tone.
• There are no "attackers". If something in a biography is presented without reference, it is removed, especially for biographies of living persons. There is/was a lot of unsourced content, and editors have been doing their due diligence to correct that.
• I didn't say that posting a wall of text was a bad thing. I said posting the same wall of text over and over wasn't helping. If you look at the AFD you'll see that (hidden away) are pages of links on repeat.
• Yes, yelling is talking in caps.
• Wikipedia is for providing factual information, but it's also based on verifiability. If we can't check that something is true, we remove it (especially when it deals with a living person).

As I have said multiple times, I'm happy to assist with improving/maintaining the page, but you're making it much more difficult to convince people that it should be kept anyway.

As a third time now, please get your own username. Sharing accounts is not allowed.

On a personal note, if your job hinges on the existence of Wikipedia page, you should probably find a new job, because that's a terrible reason to get fired. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating a shared account; Wikipedia accounts are for individuals, not for groups or teams. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Huon (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Some comments. First of all, as Primefac said repeatedly, shared use of accounts is not permitted on Wikipedia. Every member of TogethermenT who wants to edit Wikipedia should create an account of their own. This account has been used by Angela Rangalo, Julie Wiess and apparently by Riz Story, too.

Secondly, those of you who edit Wikipedia as part of their job - and that would include the head of PR at TogethermenT her staff - are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use to disclose their employer, client and affiliation (see the section on "paid contributions without disclosure"). I don't see that has happened here, at least not in any of the ways prescribed by the ToU. The easiest way to do so is to add a note on your new accounts' user pages; something along the lines of "I work for TogethermenT and edit Wikipedia as a paid editor on behalf of Riz Story." should do the trick.

Thirdly, in the very first talk page edit from this account accused others of vandalism after those others had explained the reasons behind their edits and why the content they removed was problematic. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and accusing good-faith editors of vandalism is considered a personal attack, something you should not engage in. While I'm aware there's a school in PR which thinks that being loud and brash is the best approach, I do hope that as a veteran with more than ten years of experience you will agree that civil discourse is more likely to make others see your point that ACCUSING OTHERS OF BAD FAITH IN ALL-CAPS (and yes, that is considered the internet equivalent of shouting). Particularly when, as you say above, you are not familiar with the standards of Wikipedia, asking about them to fully understand (and, hopefully, resolve) the problem seems preferable to assuming bad faith in others when you do not see the rationale behind their actions. Huon (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)