User talk:Monologuebaby

Monologuebaby, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Monologuebaby! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Sapir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Sapir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sapir until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Simona Fusco (Entrepreneur)

Hello Monologuebaby,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Simona Fusco (Entrepreneur) for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia 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 please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it would be appreciated to be conferred an opportunity improve an article, but you provided no objective criteria or a specific tag. Can you help me understand why? Thanks in advance. Monologuebaby (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Simona Fusco (Entrepreneur)

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 Simona Fusco (Entrepreneur), 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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Monologuebaby/sandbox

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 User:Monologuebaby/sandbox, 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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I retrieve the article such that I can be offered an opportunity to improve upon it.

“Simona Fusco is a European-born model, actress and businesswoman. She was recognized for her entrepreneurial leadership and contributions to local and national commerce by the current Mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti.”

Can you provide specific language, which would make this sound less promotional. There are 13 citations that reference this commendation and so I understood this to be informational. It was not intended to be promotional. It is actually quite specific to the notability of the subject. She was awarded an honor from a public servant of a metrocity as a business proprietor. If you’d like, I can share several Wikipedia biographies of “less notable people” which mention the less notable distinction.

The first sentence has one adjective: “European-born” The subsequent sentence references an award. Without an opportunity to fix or without a specific tag under the promo category, I can’t improve the article.

I would agree that the second sentence may sound promotional but given that so many biographies reference what people are most known for, my intention was to cite the award to distinguish the latter part of the subjects career from the former. The award from the Mayor of Los Angeles is consistently mentioned in third party articles on the subject. Hence, i thought that was what she is most known for.

Thanks again. Please advise. Monologuebaby (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jay Bernstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cindy Guyer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wilhelmina and Model (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trump Divorce for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump Divorce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Divorce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to delete all of my edits. I have not asked, nor do I expect to receive financial compensation for creating or editing Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your consideration, though.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Monologuebaby. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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 COI 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 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So as long as I’m not getting compensated, there is no conflict of interest? Regardless, feel free to block or delete my edits. If you need bank statements, I can provide them. Thanks.Monologuebaby (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation isn't the only determination for a COI. Apparently you didn't read the actual policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Meisha Johnson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meisha Johnson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meisha Johnson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was compensated by four individuals. Two were updates (R. Kovacik and T. Maple) and two were new articles — both deleted (M. Sapir and S. Fusco). I recently updated C. Guyer and L. Melchior and created M. Johnson and some are listed as clients, but I have not received any monetary compensation from them. I technically have an external relationship with 50,000k social media contacts and could feasibly anticipate receiving compensation from anyone. I think there is an intrinsic value in improving anyone’s profile. I had a previous account a few years back and as soon as I began indicating payment of which three were paid articles, the articles were deleted (which seemed to be more out of retribution and less out of concern for adherence to encyclopedic contributions or improving an article.) Monologuebaby (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should disclose the previous account name to avoid the allegation of WP:SOCKPUPPET Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what that means. I see, yes.

The account was blocked, so I was forced to open another one. I was not trying to impersonate or impostor anyone. Please stop with the persistent bullying. This is an attack on me after disclosing information. Attention should be placed on the articles and their level of objectiviity and neutrality and not on constant retribution. Who would want to disclose anything in a culture based on coercive and punitive behavior..

I’m not suggesting this has transpired here but an administrator in another language called it

“

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.”Monologuebaby (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...... your other account was blocked and you have created a new one? This is called WP:SOCKPUPPETry. This isn't bullying, it's policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion.

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 ~~~~}}.

In this edit you admit that your previous account was blocked and that this is your new account. When somebody is blocked, it is the person who is blocked - not the account. That means you cannot simply open a new account every time you are blocked (see WP:SOCKPUPPET). If you want to continue editing then I suggest that you reveal the name of your previous account, and then log back into that account and make a request for an unblock from there. Giant Snowman 16:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is called “cyber-bullying” and the reason the account was blocked was because my attorneys were counseling me on the issue and apparently just mentioning any legal concern elicits a block. It was not because I intentionally did anything wrong. What I did wrong were two-fold. 1) I followed protocol only to be punished for my honesty. 2) when I made a mistake I shared with candor, again only to receive more threatening and abusive behavior from other editors. My legal counsel suggested I publish my story in one of several media outlets for which I contribute to. I’m not nearly as interested in retribution as you appear to be. But this persistent abuse and unwelcoming behavior from “peers” in an opensource platform around is appalling. Giant Snowman: Would you like to be interviewed for an article in a international publication on how Wikipedia editors gang up on people, coerce them to divulge information or ask them to do so and then victimize them even if they made innocent mistakes from the beginning. Are you interested in improving Wikipedia articles or are you simply here to try to abuse power and or intimidate people. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monologuebaby (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you are using this talk page to abuse other editors, I have revoked your ability to edit it. If your original account is blocked, for whatever reason, you are not allowed to create a new one to evade that block, as described at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - when your account is blocked, you the person are prohibited from editing. The block on this account is simply upholding that very clear Wikipedia policy. If you wish to return to editing, you should log in to your original account and make a request from there. If that account is blocked for making legal threats or taking legal action, you would need to make it clear that any such action is ended and that any such threat is unequivocally withdrawn. Wikipedia policy on that issue is also clear, as explained at Wikipedia:No legal threats. You are, of course, entitled to seek legal help, but Wikipedia's policy is that you can not edit here while you are engaged in such legal actions. Once such actions are ended, an editor is usually allowed back again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]