User talk:Freeman020203

Hello, Freeman020203, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Music (Biographies)

Biographical Writing About Notable Musicians (lets talk) Freeman020203 (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Entertainment (Biographies)

Biographical Writing About Notable Actors, Comedians And Various Other Entertainers (lets talk) Freeman020203 (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KID LUXURé (June 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KID LUXURé 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and good day. can you be more specific about what exactly was wrong with my submission :) Freeman020203 (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Freeman020203, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Also see WP:MUSICBIO. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Freeman020203! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KID LUXURé (June 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KID LUXURé 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KID LUXURé (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KID LUXURé 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Kid Luxuré for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kid Luxuré 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/Kid Luxuré until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kid Luxuré, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Kid Luxuré, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Kid Luxuré. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Paid editing

Hello Freeman020203. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Freeman020203. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Freeman020203|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Theroadislong I focus my work on the basis of unbiased truths and firm grounded facts. Having been a ghostwriter for years writing biographies and other nonfictional literature, I, almost never, got paid for my work nor in any case was I connected to the subject. I understand your status as a well grounded fact seeker in the vast world of Wikipedia, but I promise you, I know what I'm working with :) after 30+ years of being a ghost I have learned from mistakes and I hundreds of mutual friends that work in Wikipedia that I could go to if I needed assistance. So in conclusion, in Wikipedia, I'm NEVER paid to edit, I'm NEVER connected to the subject. And I will always do my best to adhere Wikipedia's rules. I hope you understand, I have other articles in mind, and I would like this one to be completed so I can move on. Thank you and Keep writing! ;) Freeman020203 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

paid editing again

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Freeman020203, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Freeman020203|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason= I apologize for the misunderstanding @Aoidh but we have different editors going back and forth on the same desktop on our same account. We have an intern whose fairly new to the program and were still teaching how to edit he doesn't know the difference between a 'sandbox' and a 'blank article.' We are asking for second chance and our more experienced team will take it from here. Thank You.~~~~}} Freeman020203 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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 ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Per your response above, I've updated the block from 2 weeks to indefinite. You cannot have different editors going back and forth on the same desktop on our same account, multiple people cannot share the same account. More importantly describing yourself as our more experienced team is describing undisclosed paid editing, which is also not permitted. - Aoidh (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you intended for your response to be an unblock request, you need to remove the and markup from the beginning and end of your comment so that it will be properly displayed as an unblock request and added to the queue of unblock requests. However I can tell you that as an unblock request, that's not going to work. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. - Aoidh (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Aoidh I'm trying to be as formal as possible an unoffensive so let me go into strict detailing for you: We have a team of (3) factcheckers, (2) grammarcheckers for (7) notability standards, (1) formatting, etc. this is what I meant by editing, forgive me for not being clear. But no, we all know, we all agreed, we only have one editor and that's me.

I write, I revise, I edit.

I focus my work on the basis of unbiased truths and firm grounded facts. Having been a ghostwriter for years writing biographies and other nonfictional literature, I, almost never, got paid for my work nor in any case was I connected to the subject. I understand your status as a well grounded fact seeker in the vast world of Wikipedia, but I promise you, I know what I'm working with :) after 30+ years of being a ghost I have learned from mistakes and I hundreds of mutual friends that work in Wikipedia that I could go to if I needed assistance. So in conclusion, in Wikipedia, I'm NEVER paid to edit, I'm NEVER connected to the subject. And I will always do my best to adhere Wikipedia's rules. I hope you understand, I have other articles in mind, and I would like this one to be completed so I can move on. Thank You. Freeman020203 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You said I hundreds of mutual friends that work in Wikipedia, which is as eloquently worded as one should expect from a ghost writer of 30+ years, but you may want to reconsider your relationship with your "team", given that the notability standards "team" seemed to fail to establish basic notability of the article your "team" wrote. Your fact checkers would have also known that nobody "works" at Wikipedia. There is the WMF but they only employ about 450 people. However, if you know hundreds of them or not, it does not matter and I'm very confused why that would even be brought up. Your intern made the edits, but you're the only editor. These mounting inconsistencies do not add up, and because of that your block will not be removed by me. I highly suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You are much more likely to be successful in an appeal if you are honest, own up to what you were doing and make the relevant conflict of interest/paid editing declarations instead of coming up with increasingly ridiculous stories full of massive holes.

You claim above in the "Paid editing" section that you have 30 years experience as a ghost writer, but that you are rarely paid and never have a conflict of interest with the things you are writing about. This makes no sense - how do you pay the bills and survive if you don't get paid for your career of 30+ years? As a ghost writer surely people would be approaching you with offers of work, instantly creating a conflict of interest? You claim that you know hundreds of people who work for Wikipedia, but Wikipedia doesn't have workers - it's written and maintained entirely by volunteers. You claim to have a team of 13 people working for you, how do you pay for this if you rarely get paid? If you are just getting started editing Wikipedia why do you have 7 people on staff checking notability, a concept that is basically unique to this website? If you have 30 years of experience as a writer why is your writing full of basic errors and sentences that don't make sense like after 30+ years of being a ghost or I hundreds of mutual friends. You claim on your userpage that your name is "A.C. Freeman", but I can find no trace at all of a writer by that name existing - you would expect a ghost writer to maintain some kind of online presence as they search for work?

I'm going to stop here, but your entire story is full of holes, contradictions and things that make no sense. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Freeman020203, When you say "We have a team", might I ask who is "We"? What kind of organisation are you? By whose behest do you edit Wikipedia? You also appear to be contradicting yourself, first saying multiple people have been using this account but then claiming that "we only have one editor and that's me". Which is it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Freeman, maybe you can ping some of your friends who work here on Wikipedia so they can try to explain what you're doing. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)