Prufrock1888

Welcome!

Hello, Prufrock1888, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Big Apple. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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.

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of North 6th Agency

Hello Prufrock1888,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged North 6th Agency for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Prufrock1888. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page North 6th Agency, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MER-C 03:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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).

Prufrock1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello! I would like to try to appeal the blocking of this profile as a way to reinstate one of the pages that was previously published. I see the COI error here, and was not aware of how to disclose an article's content. I’m very new to this and Wikipedia can be very confusing. But I have since followed up on the rules and regulations with regard to adequate publishing and ensure that my contributions comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Furthermore, normal conflicts of interest typically use unsourced or poorly sourced material and often violates the neutral point of view policy by being promotional and omitting negative information, but the page in question and the information found within is relevant to the public at large. This is in part due to the objective, fact-based statements that make up the page, the reputable and thorough sourcing and the status of the subject within the industry backed up by those sources. Thank you! Prufrock1888 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked if you plan on continuing to spam mentalfloss links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

What is your connection to mentalfloss.com? 331dot (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Thanks for your response. I know some of their writers, and am familiar with their rigorous editorial process, so I know how reputable their sourcing is. When I began my initial edits to contribute to the Wikipedia community I thought the best place to start would be to make edits on familiar topics due to the fact that I know the sourcing was trustworthy. As a contributor I want to make sure that every edit made is fact-based and true. As I said I’m extremely new to the rules of Wikipedia and I didn’t mean to intentionally spam links, and if given a second chance and my profile is reinstated I would gladly use a wide range of sources to prove the veracity of my profile on numerous pages. Thank you! Prufrock1888 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to make another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Great, thank you! Do you suggest that I specifically tag the admin "Ohnoitsjamie" from above for the request or submit a general "unblock|reason=Your reason here" request?

Just FYI pings only work if you sign the post in which you are making a ping with ~~~~. You can ask Ohnoitsjamie for comment, but a different administrator will likely review the block(possibly me, though it may be someone else). 331dot (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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).

Prufrock1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello! I was given permissions by 331dot (talk · contribs) to make another unblock request. As I explained to them with regard to any sort of alleged link spamming,when I began my initial edits to contribute to the Wikipedia community I thought the best place to start would be to make edits on familiar topics due to the fact that I know the sourcing was trustworthy. As a contributor I want to make sure that every edit made is fact-based and true. I’m extremely new to the rules of Wikipedia and I didn’t intentionally spam links. I have since followed up on the proper rules and regulations with regard to adequate publishing that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and would undoubtedly do so from now on if given the opportunity to be reinstated and appeal my other contributions. Any pages should include objective, fact-based statements that make up the page with a variety of reputable and thorough sourcing, and ensure the status and integrity of the subject is backed up by those sources. Thank you! Prufrock1888 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

CheckUser evidence leads me to believe that you are probably a paid editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

• To be clear, I was not giving or denying permission; I was simply telling you what you could do; permission isn't relevant. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! Prufrock1888 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Will you confirm that you've read WP:PAID above? I'm concerned that you're not being transparent with the links you added or with that now-deleted article you wrote. Kuru (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kuru (talk · contribs), thanks for your response. Yes, part of the process of following up on the proper rules and regulations with regard to adequate publishing that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines included the conflict of interest policies that comply with both the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and the local policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. I’ve now double and triple checked all parameters listed under “How to disclose,” and any further necessary edits from me, or republication requests for any deleted pages, will include necessary disclosures of employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions on my main user page or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions. Also, should any further edits require these steps, I will be sure to include the "connected contributor (paid)" template or create a content proposal on the talk page of an existing article, or put new articles through the articles for creation process to be reviewed prior to being published. At this point, I’d be happy to provide any information needed to prove that I will fully and undoubtedly comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Prufrock1888 (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kuru (talk · contribs), wanted to follow up to see if I could provide any further information for you for reinstatement. I’d gladly continue the conversation further so we can resolve this issue. Thank you! Prufrock1888 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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).

Prufrock1888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello! I want to make a final reinstatement request. In my previous correspondence with admins, I’ve stated that I will ensure the proper rules and regulations with regard to adequate publishing that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and would undoubtedly do so from now on if given the opportunity to be reinstated and appeal my other contributions. Any pages should include objective, fact-based statements that make up the page with a variety of reputable and thorough sourcing, and ensure the status and integrity of the subject is backed up by those sources. I’ve now double and triple checked all parameters listed under “How to disclose,” and any further necessary edits from me, or republication requests for any deleted pages, will include necessary disclosures of employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions on my main user page or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions. Also, should any further edits require these steps, I will be sure to include the template or create a content proposal on the talk page of an existing article, or put new articles through the articles for creation process to be reviewed prior to being published. At this point, I’d be happy to provide any information needed to prove that I will fully and undoubtedly comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I feel as though I’ve adequately explained my predicament and would humbly request to be reinstated. Thank you. Prufrock1888 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So you wrote about North 6th Agency and Judge Graham, and the latter happens to be a client of the former, and yet none of that would be considered paid editing? Sorry, I don't believe that. Huon (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

So which of your past edits were paid edits that would require disclosure? Huon (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Huon: Hi! None of the edits were paid. I'd written a page that should've required COI disclosures, and would be happy to start again with those parameters in place. Prufrock1888 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huon: Hi again. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Yes, those pages would be considered paid, and I've laid out my case for disclosing those COI issues moving forward. I was referring to my earlier points about mentalfloss edits from the user OhNoitsJamie. Those were not paid, and do not require any sort of COI disclosure. Please reconsider as I feel like I've made my case for reinstatement. Prufrock1888 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Kuru wrote above: "I'm concerned that you're not being transparent with the links you added or with that now-deleted article you wrote." I asked which of your past edits were paid, and you said none of them were. After being presented with evidence that makes paid editing so likely that further denial would be pointless you're changing your statement. That makes me wonder: What other edits of yours were paid that I haven't yet presented evidence for? Can we trust you to comply with the disclosure requirements after this episode or would we have to go on fact-finding expeditions whenever we have doubts, just to learn that there was another misunderstanding? You are welcome to request another review of your block (by a different administrator), but given this exchange, I'm opposed to unblocking you. Huon (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huon:I assure you, I’m not lying or trying to confuse you. I mistook what you were referring to when you said “edits.” Instead of the totality of my edits, I thought you were referring to the initial mental floss edits that I addressed with the user OhNoitsJamie. There are so many admins in this thread, and I’ve explained minute details for each one that specificity is essential. Again I’ve now double and triple checked all parameters listed under “How to disclose,” and any further necessary edits from me, or republication requests for any deleted pages, will include necessary disclosures of employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions on my main user page or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions. Also, should any further edits require these steps, I will be sure to include the "connected contributor (paid)" template or create a content proposal on the talk page of an existing article, or put new articles through the articles for creation process to be reviewed prior to being published. At this point, I’d be happy to provide any information needed to prove that I will fully and undoubtedly comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I’ve tried for months to honestly explain how I’d contribute if reinstated, and If I didn’t earnestly believe that I would have stopped proving my point with suggested actionable next steps. Please reconsider as I feel like I've made my case for reinstatement. Prufrock1888 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, you are welcome to request another review of your block (by a different administrator), but given this exchange, I'm opposed to unblocking you. At a closer look I have to conclude that your comments above about the Mental Floss links are deliberately misleading, too. Huon (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)