Hi, Jjanhone. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  22:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people. Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes. Play in your user area. For example, create User:Jjanhone/test. Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009. When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references. Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! --  Chzz  ►  Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Hello, you would need independent reliable sources to mention your wiki on Wikipedia, see also the Notability guidelines. Hope that helps. Siawase (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, specialist dollhouse focused magazines would be fine, as long as they have editorial oversight and the coverage is independent (most importantly, that it's editorial material, not advertising.) See the reliable sources guidelines for more details. Any material included on Wikipedia is also subject to other policies, aside from being verifiable it must also be neutral. Since you are directly affiliated with the site, you should also look at the Conflict of interest guideline. Let me know if you have further questions. Siawase (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konecranes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hoist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 18:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valmet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pulp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taneli Tikka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jjanhone. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Taneli Tikka does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Acalycine (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jjanhone. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Marttila (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Salo

Pöytyä (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aura

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Jjanhone, thanks for creating Hoho, Finland!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your fastidious attention to the COI policies and your excellent contributions which are, unfortunately, a rarity among paid editors. Chetsford (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Jjanhone (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please respond to User talk:Jjanhone#Ways to improve Hoho, Finland? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I answered on the Hoho page itself. There are no sources available even in Finnish or at least not on Internet. I translated the article from the Finnish article because I needed to test the translation tool and picked Hoho because it is a village near me. So if you wish you can remove the page. Jjanhone (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Jjanhone. I'll leave it as it is notable, I just ned to look for a reference to confirm its existence. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jjanhone you must read the last paragraph of WP:PAID and should not be editing affected articles directly, but seeking consensus on those articles' Talk pages. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 20:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read it once again. It stil says "are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles" so editing is not forbidden. But this was new for me: "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services". What does this mean? That I should link to my other Wikimedia accounts? Aren't those already linked to this account as all my accounts are called Jjanhone (e.g. in Finnish Wikipedia)? And that I shouls also link to my company's page and to my blog and to my social media accounts where I tell about my services? Do you have any good examples of someone who has already done this? Just wondering the part "Paid editors may not advertise or promote their services on Wikipedia.". Jjanhone (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jjanhone, do not indulge in wiki-lawyering; please.

The wording are strongly discouraged provides a latency for reverting vandalism et al. Nothing more.

Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services asks you to provide links to all places, where you advertise your business. any Upwork account, Linkedin account et al which stands a reasonable chance of attracting customers shall be mentioned.

Thus, you are very correct when you state that I should also link to my company's page and to my blog and to my social media accounts where I tell about my services.

And, no, it does not allow you to advertise or promote your services on Wikipedia. The page mentions The disclosures required by the terms of use and this policy are not regarded as advertisements or promotion. ∯WBG^converse 07:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, kindly mention each and every of your paid-edit, at your user-page, (including the ones over here) by using the appropriate template, as you have already done for one over this thread.

That's a mandatory requirement per global TOU and local policies. ∯WBG^converse 07:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering me ∯WBG! I've now added links to my web pages and social media accounts where I tell about my work. And I've used the COI template on the articles I've edited for years now and kept tracked of the paid editing on my user page. Jjanhone (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fitindia was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I can't find any alternative sources regarding their international tour and broadwayworld.com does not seem reliable to me. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO at this point. For now it looks like it is WP:TOOSOON.

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 Draft:The APX and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The APX, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FitIndia ^Talk 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jjanhone! Having an article 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! FitIndia Talk 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fitindia for your comment, it's been a long wait. I can live with it but I do have a question: what about the songs they've created and that has been used by other musicians? Too few of them or what? So after there are more reliable sources about the concert tour, the article can be recreated? Will it be in the draft space waiting or will it be deleted? Jjanhone (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jjanhone. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! :D Eyitayo Alimi (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GSS was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Allmusic.com, top40-charts.com and broadwayworld.com are not reliable sources.

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 Draft:The APX and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The APX, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GSS (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GSS was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

daily.bandcamp.com is not what we call WP:RS and it looks like a blog than a reputed news publication. I'm declining for the second time because there is nothing much to look at since it was last reviewed. Please remove all the unreliable sources before you resubmit it for a review.

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 Draft:The APX and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The APX, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GSS (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get this. You say daily.bandcamp.com is not a reliable source. How ever it's been referred in hundreads of Wikipedia articles. He has also asked to remove Allmusic.com which has been referred in nearly 30 K articles and top40-charts.com which is found from 20 K articles and broadwayworld.com which has been used in more than 2000 articles. What am I missing here? Jjanhone (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HappyOrNot-logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it is ok now.Jjanhone (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jjanhone! You created a thread called Reliable sources in music articles at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to remember this discussion, so I copied it here. Jjanhone (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been editing a draft for The APX band Draft:The_APX and it has been declined three times. Firts in November, as it was "too soon" and there were "no reliable sources about their international tour". The tour was postponed from 2018 to 2019 and once I added the sources for the tour in 2019 it was again declined, because "Allmusic.com, top40-charts.com and broadwayworld.com are not reliable sources". I wonder why they are bad sources as they've been used in hundreads (or thousands) of other music articles. In July I added a new source, Bandcamp.com, which has been mentioned in thousands of articles but the draft was declined again. There's now 17 sources, all external to the band and I'm asked to remove "all the unreliable sources before resubmitting it for a review". Should I do that? If I remove allmusic, top40, bww and bandcamp there will be 11 sources left. Any other ideas about how to improve the draft or explanations about why these sources are so bad? And yes, I'm a paid editor and open about it. The article was created by someone who was not open and he was being blocked (for ever) before he was able to confess. Jjanhone (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: - AllMusic is reliable, GSS is incorrect. The discussions on it can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (which is a good place to find other possible sources). BWW probably is unreliable, the reliable sources noticeboard has had a couple of short discussions on it. Top40 charts is unclear. I've removed the UDP tag as I felt that most of the content had now been handled by you, and if you were a non-paid editor it would be a legitimate removal.

Trying to find a non BWW source for the tour might be a good way of proving notability. If you manage that, feel free to ping me for a review - the same reviewer is generally discouraged from doing multiple consecutive reviews of a draft unless it either doesn't change or we're requested Nosebagbear (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Charlie Jabaley, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 10:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DNA Oyj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rauma (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) 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Componenta 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/Componenta 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. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're being paid to work on Ken Banks, you need disclose it and make {{edit request}}s rather than editing the page directly. You've been told this before, so please be aware that further undisclosed paid editing is likely to lead to a block. – Joe (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the note. I'm trying to remove all irrelevant stuff from the article but you added them back? Jjanhone (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you need to propose changes for volunteers to review, not make them yourself. – Joe (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've decided to edit war these changes back in, I've temporarily blocked you from editing the article. Please use the talk page and {{edit request}} from hereon. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this now: [1]? Jjanhone (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jjanhone, would recommend using the formal {{edit request}}. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. SmartSE (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked repeatedly to suggest changes on talk pages rather than editing articles directly. At Solar Foods you have just added promotional language such as "a new solution for the global food industry", "it received huge international publicity", "may revolutionise food production worldwide by ensuring sustainable food production for the growing population", "feed microbes derived from "pure wild nature, the Finnish soil"" etc. SmartSE (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In fact, having looked over your talk page more, please consider this a final warning - you will be blocked if you persist in editing articles directly. SmartSE (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The things you mentioned are sourced by big Finnish media. Thus, I don't think I'm adding promotional material but facts. SmartSE, do you suggest me to use sand box for suggesting changes? There's plenty of them. Jjanhone (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can't see the problem is very disturbing. SmartSE (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've understood your final warning but I'm still asking your advice about how to continue. Via sandbox and then adding a change request? Or adding all change requests on the talk page of the article?Jjanhone (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if I'd like to create a new page, how to do that?Jjanhone (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Through WP:AFC. But more to the point, you can find the answers to all of these questions in WP:COI (specifically WP:PAY). Please familiarise yourself fully with that guideline if you intend to continue editing for pay. It is your responsibility to read and follow the instructions – not volunteers' to explain them to you. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe, I've seen these pages but they are now explaining the process in details. If you know a paid editor who is good at these processes I'd be greateful for getting a role-model for a new way of contributing. What I'm now concerned is that with SmartSE's warning I may not be able to use the translation tool anymore. Is that the case? Today I was in the middle of editing when SmartSE edited the article and I saved before I knew he had just edited the same article. Jjanhone (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The translation tool supports creating pages in your userspace or draftspace. – Joe (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One more question. Are you talking about a global ban or a ban in English Wikipedia only? Jjanhone (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I said "block" not "ban" and there is a difference: Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks. This would only apply to en.wiki. Also note that different Wikipedia's have different policies and guidelines so what is appropriate on the Finnish Wikipedia may not be here. Considering that the Solar Food article there was written by yourself and an single purpose account who appears to have a COI, I don't understand why you think that article existing means that you can translate that to here. SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion on Admin's noticeboard I think I can continue editing. See the comments I copied from the discussion below. Jjanhone (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get that WP:PAID says "strongly discouraged" for direct edits to an article, but that is not the same as forbidden. Assuming the edit was not unduly promotional and made clear it was a paid edit I do not see an issue with them editing an article directly. Is there something I am missing?
— [[User:PackMecEng 15:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)]]

"I think the community has a contradictory / split decision on this, Generally speaking, you are strongly discouraged from making edits directly to the article you have a COI with rather you are advised to use the article's talk page to suggest the changes you are proposing but no where does it say you mandated to do so.
— [[User:Celestina007 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

"Jjanhone, Editors here read the same policies and guidelines and have their own unique interpretation of it. When you read WP:PAID it clearly states you are strongly discouraged from editing articles you have a COI with but being strongly discouraged is not the same as being forbidden from undertaking a particular course of action. Moving forward, proposing the changes in the article's talk page first is good practice but no policy makes it compulsory for you to do so. I say this as one who abhors completely the concept of edit for pay be it disclosed or undisclosed but I just have to set the record straight. If any editor warns you about editing directly the article’s you have a COI with you can always remind them that you aren’t necessarily mandated to propose the changes in the article’s talk page. My advise would be this; in future when you have been paid to write an article, just ensure to pass it through the WP:AFC process. Your transparency so far is commendable & I’m quite saddened that this hasn’t been duly appreciated.
— [[User:Celestina007 18:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)]]

"Echoing PackMecEng, at al., paid editing of articles directly isn't forbidden, just strongly discouraged. If a user persists and do so in a way that is promotional/non-neutral/using bad sources/whatever and continues to do so after warnings, then issue an explicit topic ban. What's problematic is where people try to tell paid editors that editing an article directly isn't allowed. That's not actually backed by policy and will just confuse them to the point that we effectively discourage disclosure.
— [[User: Rhododendrites 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

*"Good faith disclosure of paid editing should be treated on the merits of the content, not more-hastily blocked because they disclosed their payment.
— [[User:Wittylama 09:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

*"In my opinion, it's best to treat the "paid" angle as irrelevant and focus on the edits: if someone repeatedly violates WP:NPOV after warnings, they may be blocked for disruption related to the POV-pushing, without regard to their disclosed paid status.
— [[User:xeno 13:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

"Disclosed paid editors are only 'strongly discouraged' to edit articles directly (in a guideline), and not prohibited (in a policy).
— [[User:xeno 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

"The conversation below sums it up better though. So quit trying to require paid edits use the talk page first, that is not supported by policy. If they have a habit of violating NPOV that is different and can be sorted out separately. Though looking at the examples given it is not a very strong case for that.
— [[User:PackMecEng 15:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

"Not seeing any indication that Jjanhone has violated PAID or COI. The warnings were incorrect: paid editors are allowed to edit articles directly (strongly discouraged means still permitted) and they don't have to use AFC for new creations (there's an ongoing RFC about that, the current wording is "should", not "must"). As long as Jj's edits otherwise comply with all the WP:PAGs and they are making disclosures (the disclosure should be made immediately after making a COI edit; don't wait a few hours, plan to do it at the same time), they're in compliance.
— [[User:Lev!vich 16:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

*"There is definitely a stigma against paid editors that is counterproductive to both our policies and our goals. Yes, paid editors may absolutely be editing to advance a bias, however, as Xeno says, if they are doing so, their paid status is irrelevant. If they are not, there is no reason to object to their edits if they are otherwise in compliance with policy. If I'm not mistaken, this appears to be about additions made to Solar Foods. SmartSE reverted those additions without any substantive objection whatsoever, other than the notion that the editor is to suggest their changes on the talk page, and is not to actually implement any changes. As is repeatedly explained above, this is not what the policy says is required. I do not see SmartSE articulating any actual content objection to the content they reverted and warned, and when the paid editor asked in good faith what the problem was and how to go forward, SmartSE was unable to provide them with any answer other than threatening to block them. It is not appropriate to revert content without an explanation, and even less appropriate to revert content based on an explanation that is out of line with policy. It seems this was an inappropriate admin intervention.
— [[User:Swarm 02:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

"We make the process painful for editors who follow the rules, and then we're hostile towards them regardless. Why would anyone disclose if this is the result? Unless someone has a magic UPE detector, we simply cannot afford to incentivize non-disclosure. There is no policy-based reason why OP cannot edit articles and unless they are being disruptive, it is in our best interest to let them continue.
— [[User: Wug·a·po·des​ 04:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)"]]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Neste. Thank you. - DoubleCross (‡) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying! Jjanhone (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kalevala brand logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jjanhone (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article You May Now Kill the Bride has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, sourced only to ImdB.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing. The article is not that important, it was just something I noticed that was missing.Jjanhone (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

Also, if you email me to get around this ban, I will assume that you are agreeing in advance that the entire contents of the e-mail can be released to anyone I wish to.

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlie Jabaley 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/Charlie Jabaley 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.

♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jjanhone. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ♠Vami! I'm not familiar with this process, so could you tell me more: am I entitled to answer on the linked page? Maybe I start collecting the information here and move it if necessary? Jjanhone (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] and [3].

See [4] and [5]

See [6] and [7]

I've tried to rephrase the things found from the source. Like this:

I've tried to rephrase the things found from the source. Like this:

I've tried to rephrase the things found from the source. Like this:

• This is textbook close paraphrasing, which is still plagiarism and copyright infringement. You need to write things in your own words, not just rearrange the sentence so they're not identical. With You May Now Kill the Bride, for example, all you did was adjust the order of clauses, retaining the same sentence structure and particular phrasing of the original author (identical text in bold): Nicole, whose boyfriend Mark pops the question, starts planning her dream wedding. An acceptable paraphase is to take the meaning of the original text and put it your own words, e.g. Nicole begins planning her wedding after her boyfriend Mark proposes to her. Although ideally you wouldn't do it on a sentence-by-sentence basis—because that can easily slip into close paraphrasing too—you'd summarise the overall message of the source, e.g. Nicole and Mark are planning their wedding with the help of Mark's stepsister, Audrey. Events take a sinister turn when Audrey's "dangerous obsession" with Mark is revealed. – Joe (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this term "close paraphrasing" before and I obviosly need to pay more attention to this. Saying things differently in Finnish is easier for me as I've have more words, synonyms and structures available. Often the things I edit here are translated from the Finnish Wikipedia article I've modified for the customer's topic.Jjanhone (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you translate content from the Finnish-language Wikipedia, you need to attribute that too, otherwise it's still copyright infringement. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm translating text that I orginally formulated in Finnish, am I breaking my own copyrights? Jjanhone (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if there are other contributors to that page, you're creating a derivative work and violating theirs – and just attributing anyway makes things easier to understand for everybody involved. Blablubbs|talk 12:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjanhone I was not aware of this term "close paraphrasing" is it not your job as someone who is literally paid to write content for your clients to make sure you abide by policy and law? As far as the attribution issue, unless you're the only one who has ever edited the article, you need to attribute it. VAXIDICAE💉 20:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, I did open the CCI, as there were many Copyvios. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 00:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Praxidicae}} Some context here. There is no concept like close paraphrasing in Finnish copyright law. Ie in Finnish copyright law copyright is protecting strictly the form and not the content/ideas etc. Because this the close paraphrasing is out of the scope of the Finnish law. Concept of plagiarism is bit different as it refers to the stealing others ideas or "fruits of work" and it is not defined by Finnish law (though person who doing it can still break good manners, contracts and laws). Plagiarism generally requires that person present the content as one's own original work. Ie plagiarism is not case here as the sources were credited. I know that this doesn't really matter as we are following here enwikis internal policies and US law, but it will still somehow explain why somebody wont know the term close paraphrasing. Zache (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zache That is on Jjanhone, who has been here long enough and has had it explained to them. TAXIDICAE💰 11:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's a giant notice when you edit any page on Wikipedia that says: Information icon4.svg Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.. TAXIDICAE💰 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how come multiple Finnish IPs and a new SPA are removing {{paid contributions}} from articles that you wrote over the last couple of days? e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Have you told your clients that they can remove them? SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last week the Paid tag was added to over 50(!) articles I have been editing by one user who has warned me not to ping they. I made an ANI about the case as the tag should be only added with an explanation and that was not the case here. After that I've added a note on the corresponding Talk pages saying that: "According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."". So I've not told that my customers can edit the template but that any volunteer editor can do it. And I couldn't mention the tag adders username on the discussion either to ask about the explanation, I already did that and got this warning. Yesterday this user blanked one of the articles I was working with. On their Talk page they are saying that "Paid editors are a serious problem, one that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia in general and, if not more strictly controlled, could lead to the demise of the encyclopedia as a credible source of unbiased information. In my opinion, paid editors should not be allowed at all, and their contributions, when found, should be completely reverted, but for one reason or another that does not seem to be possible. Therefore, I will continue to use all the methods -- all the legal methods -- available to let our readers know when editing by outside agents has sullied our articles." So after all these incidents I have to ask if you have joined their team in fighting against paid editing? Jjanhone (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the context, but that was not what I was asking about. Your response So I've not told that my customers can edit the template but that any volunteer editor can do it. is not very clear. Just to check, are you denying that you have had any role whatsoever in removing these tags? SmartSE (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed the tags. And now it seems like *you* don't want to answer my question... Jjanhone (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So once again, you haven't answered my question. I am not part of any "team" if that is what you are asking me. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are asking me to explain why Finnish IPs are removing the Paid template. I guess there are people who has seen the tag on the article and clicked either the Talk page or the Template link. So maybe they've followed my tip or the template's tip "any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." I think that you are now accusing me of sock puppeting which is a new phase in this witch hunt that's been going on for weeks now. Feels like I'm the only disclosed paid editor who is being hunted this way but correct me if I'm wrong. Jjanhone (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjanhone I think it would behoove you to read up on relevant enwiki policies. Your combative responses to editors who are volunteers is not helpful and is not likely to get you any help. No one is obligated to respond to your allegation of a witch hunt. You've also failed to address your copyright violations, so you should probably start there. VAXIDICAE💉 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that? Jjanhone (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

where is what? VAXIDICAE💉 15:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You've also failed to address your copyright violations, so you should probably start there".Jjanhone (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section directly above this and the CCI which is also linked there??? VAXIDICAE💉 15:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So am I expected to be active on that process? Jjanhone (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously asking whether or not you need to be involved in a discussion about your violating copyright (while creating heavily promotional paid articles, no less) where direct questions have been asked of you? Do you think it's everyone else's job as a volunteer to clean up your mess? Your response here is really mind boggling. VAXIDICAE💉 15:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Contributors who are the subject of a CCI are not welcome to directly evaluate their own or others' copyright violations in CCIs. They are welcome to assist with rewriting any problems identified." So far I haven't seen any "problems identified" so I don't know what you were referring with "You've failed to address your copyright violations". I'm happy to help, but don't know how that should be done. I cannot rewrite the diffs that are now being studied, can I? Jjanhone (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how the section directly above this one, where the problem is pointed out, is an actual problem?! VAXIDICAE💉 16:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. SmartSE's question was Have you told your clients that they can remove them? – my question is a little broader (and it's sort of implied in the original one): Have you had any communications with anyone discussing the tags in a manner that could be construed to encourage them to engage in removal?

Let me also make a more general point. I won't comment on your squabbles with BMK or the appropriateness of the specific manner in which tags were placed – I don't want to wade into that specific swamp of a discussion which is currently playing out in multiple venues. I have, however, reverted the removals pointed out by SmartSE and left explanations on talk pages where appropriate. Let me be very frank: Putting a disclosure notice on your user page does not mean that WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply to you^[1] – neither does it mean that you are exempt from copyright rules, from the obligation to provide diffs when making accusations^[2] or from sock- and meatpuppetry policies. I've seen many editors get blocked for writing less promotional articles and engaging in less egregious violations of copyright law. You know that the community strongly discourages paid editors from editing pages directly, and if you're going to do so anyway, you are still required to follow the same rules as everyone else.

You are also currently really not helping yourself: Your rewrite of copied content above shows – as Joe and Prax pointed out – that you do not seem to have gained a more complete understanding of copyright policy, and your insistence on casting aspersions at SmartSE for asking a very reasonable question shows that you do not seem to understand the seriousness of the issues here. The copyright violations^[3] alone will take volunteer editors (that is, people who aren't paid to edit or to read and follow policies, guidelines, and the law) weeks, if not months, to review and clean up, and as far as I can tell, you haven't even acknowledged their seriousness thus far. I strongly encourage you to rethink your approach here. Blablubbs|talk 15:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've opened an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jjanhone. – Joe (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jjanhone. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dagrouplogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Zibby Owens while doing some patrols for excessive goodreads spam and I have to say that I'm pretty surprised by the overall tone which reads very promotionally and would suggest you re-read WP:NPOV and fix the article to an actual encyclopedic standard. I am finding this to be the case across the board for many articles which you have significantly contributed to and strongly suggest you go through and cull the advertising. TAXIDICAE💰 17:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting TAXIDICAE💰! I've started a discussion about the tone of the article today and got some advice on the Talk page. I'd appreciate if you could give some practical hints about what's wrong with the article now so it would easier to improve it. Jjanhone (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kotipizza needs serious clean up as well. There is a lot wrong with the tone in all of these and pointing out each specific example is an unfair burden to place on other editors. My recommendation, again, is to review WP:NPOV and some of our good articles to see how the tone should be. My second suggestion, which is actually a formal request is that you start utilizing the requested edit process to prevent further problems as it will allow for another set of eyes to determine whether it's neutral and WP:DUE because right now after reviewing several of your articles, it's a huge mess that will require a lot of clean up that could've been prevented if the normal processes were followed. TAXIDICAE💰 14:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also wrt Kotipizza, I'm really concerned with copyright violations, for example During the first operating years, business grew fast, and the 100th Kotipizza restaurant opened in 1992. In 1995, a shop-in-shop concept was introduced to the business model, when Kotipizza concluded an agreement with the Neste Oil service station chain. The model reduced start-up costs for a new location. The 200th Kotipizza restaurant was founded in 1996.[3] is word for word copied from here at the paragraph starting Kotipizzan perusti yrittäjä Rabbe Grönblom ja ensimmäinen Kotipizza-ravintola perustettiin vuonna 1987. TAXIDICAE💰 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now edited the part you mentioned. I don't think it was a word for word copy, but it was very similar indeed. This is the new version: "In 1992 there were 100 Kotipizza restaurants. In 1995, a shop-in-shop concept that reduced the start-up costs of a new location was taken into use together with the Neste Oil service station chain. By 1996 there were 200 Kotipizza restaurants." How can I know if there are more copyvios on Kotipizza article? Jjanhone (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote it, so you should know whether it's copied or not. There are several more paragraphs that are very closely paraphrased if not directly copied from a translated version of the source above. TAXIDICAE💰 15:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are using a tool to make these comparisions. Is it open for anyone to use? If yes, where can I find it? I'm not the only person who has edited the Kotipizza article so it's hard to know which words are written by me now. Jjanhone (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one who added these violations. There isn't a tool, I'm literally looking at the text and the sources with my own two eyes. TAXIDICAE💰 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjanhone, please read our pages on close paraphrasing and copyright violations. @Praxidicae: Ma'am, you may already know that Jjanhone is the subject of an open investigation for copyright violations, but if you didn't, you do now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Zibby Owens, 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. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Molok logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Blablubbs|talk 12:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So could you explain what this mean in practise Blablubbs? Am I allowed to edit biographies anymore? Jjanhone (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are – it's just a standard notification given to people who frequently edit BLPs to inform them about the special set of rules governing the area. Blablubbs|talk 12:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what is changed now Blablubbs? Am I expected to do something? Or is it that if I do a mistake after this warning (like using a source that others find unreliable), any moderator can give me a ban on editing BLP articles? How long will this ban last or is it forever? Or does this perhaps mean that I am not allowed to discuss the content of personal articles anymore? Jjanhone (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not expected to do something, no. This is just a standard notification about a sanctions regime in an area you edit in; awareness of this regime does mean that one may be sanctioned under it, but the notification is not a sanction or a threat of sanctions. Blablubbs|talk 05:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rautaruukki, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rautaruukki until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Solita (company), 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. GermanKity (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An early version of the article can be found from my sandbox. The article was deleted because of "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The documentation says that "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So even though some editors think it is promotional it should not be deleted as the subject is notable. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There were 42 references on the article and only 2 of them were company internal. There's also a Wikipedia article about the company in Finnish, started on 2010.Jjanhone (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping DoubleGrazing & Finnusertop. Jjanhone (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me, although clearly I've no expertise, let alone say, in this matter. But if you simply wanted my views, then FWIW: I do think the article is written in a somewhat promotional style; this, IMHO, is almost inevitable with paid contributions. On the other hand, the referencing does look pretty solid, and personally I've little doubt the company is notable (even if I've never heard of it myself!). For that reason, I'm pretty sure this would have survived an AfD, if one'd been moved, and I am a bit surprised the speedy was actioned. I guess you could always take this to DRV. G11 speedies can also be recreated, but you do have to be extra careful to avoid even the slightest whiff of promotionality (is that a word?), or else you could be sanctioned for spamming. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting DoubleGrazing. I saw you were editing an article I recently created so I thought you might have a say about the Finnish sources I've used to prove the notability of the company. DRV was not a familiar process for me but that's a suitable way I think. So cheers again and happy editing! Jjanhone (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjanhone, I think the normal process here, which you've already done, is to ask the deleting admin for more specifics, which is sometimes useful because speedy deletion usually leaves editors with little explanation. You can, and have, also ask the editor who nominated it for speedy deletion. I think it's their insights that matter more than mine. If you are unable to hash it out with them, the next step is WP:DRV. I do, however, have expertise in Finnish sources and the sources used throughout the version in your sandbox are good. I suspect the problem is not with the sources per se but how you've used them. But again, this is the position (probably) taken by the nominator and the deleting admin, so let's wait for their replies. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Finnusertop. I piged you too to get comments about the Finnish sources I've used to prove the notability of the company. Thanks for linking DRV, as it was a new process for me. And indeed, I've contacted both of these editors: Athaenara[18] and GermanKity [19] earlier today but haven't got a reply yet. So if I do not get replies maybe one week of waiting is enough before starting DRV. So thanks again and happy editing! Jjanhone (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Deletion review for PAGE NAME ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE NAME. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jjanhone (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 Draft:Solita (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Solita (company), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solita (company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zibby Owens 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/Zibby Owens 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.

PlayOboe (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information. I've added my comment on the discussion page, but adding it here too for myself. Keep - I did some investigation too about things missing from the article. 1) Zibby Owens: The New York woman upending the publishing scene on The Jerusalem Post on 8th July 2022. 2) Author on Good Morning America [20] 3) interview about her new book on Good Morning America 4) "Owens has staged an awards show to honor the best books, and even started her own publishing company, Zibby Books." at ABC7NY 5) Owens interview on Forbes, 6) Owens' book on Penguin Random House 7) Owens on CNN 8) Owens on Business Insider 9) Owens on Psychology Today 10) Owens on Publishers Weekly. So I think she deserves an article for the amount of notable media featuring her. Jjanhone (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Incap 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/Incap (2nd nomination) 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.

Morpho achilles (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing. I've added my comment on the discussion page but adding it here as well for myself. Keep. If you compare the current live article and the one in drafts you'll see that they are very different. The published one has been translated from the Finnish Wikipedia article and it has many analyst reports used as a source (like HighKing and Jtbobwaysf wished in the previous deletion discussion). In the Draft version there were 49 sources of which 28 were internal to Incap. In the live version there are 38 sources, 2 of them Incap internal.Jjanhone (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gigglebug Entertainment, 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. PICKLEDICAE🥒 10:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted but you did add a tag on it saying that I was quilty of undisclosed paid editing. Even if I had disclosed on my user page and on the talk page of the article. Was it part of the reasons the article was deleted in the first place Athaenara? Remember WP:FOC? "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." And like G11 says: "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So are you saying the company is not notable? The version I was working on can be seen on my sandbox.Jjanhone (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here we are again - why are you, a paid editor, moving content to mainspace instead of going through WP:AFC like everyone else? Especially considering your past issues with copyright violations and inability to adhere to a neutral point of view? PICKLEDICAE🥒 11:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 03:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to start editing with the style you are recommending for paid editors, using AFC and edit request processes. That was my intention already when I asked that you could have moved the article you deleted to the Draft space so I could continue working on it there. The decision of blocking was made while I was sleeping so I had no chance to speak for myself during the process. So as I cannot answer there, I'll do it here, see below. Note that the decision was made pretty fast and quite many accounts that are against paid editing in general were pinged in the thread to get their attention.Jjanhone (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline so as not to preempt the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community ban discussion - Jjanhone. If the result of that discussion is that you're subject to a community ban (which seems to be the way it's heading), you cannot be unblocked without prior consensus at AN. Otherwise, please feel free to make another unblock request after the it has come to a close. – Joe (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Hello Joe! According to CBAN guideline "Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response." As I'm blocked, I cannot post my response. So I'm posting here another unblock request, as it was suggested in the CBAN instructions. While waiting, maybe someone could copy my response below to the AN thread? Jjanhone (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd like to get unblocked in order to leave my response in a discussion concerning me.

Decline reason:

There is so far clear consensus for a community ban at AN, and therefore undoing the block would be inappropriate. But I'll copy your response to the AN discussion so that people can read what you have to say. Sandstein 12:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• Jéské Couriano told that there are "constant copyright violations" from me. Are there really? Since this claim came up few years ago, I've been very careful about not repeating the mistakes I made earlier while I created en-articles using en-sources. More often I create the content using fi-sources to fi-Wikipedia and when they've been translated I add them to en-Wikipedia. As my mother tongue is Finnish, also my synonym storage is wider in Finnish so it's easier to avoid the potential copyright issues in this process.
• Praxidicae told that "janjhoe has had more than enough time and experience that they should be competent enough to make reasonable edits". Athaenara said that "This kind of editing degrades the quality of this encyclopedia" while Dennis_Brown said they "Support after reviewing their total *.wikipedia history." If my edits are that bad, how come my stats show that I have "Live edits 3,802 (98.6%)" vs "Deleted edits 55 (1.4%)"?
• 86.23.109.101 said that I "lack the English and editorial skills necessary to contribute here". Is en-Wikipedia meant for native English speakers only? I've written e.g. this text by myself, not using a translation tool. I've studied English since I was 9 years old and used it also as working language for 11 years while I worked in Nokia and also after that while I worked in Austria. I will never be a native, but I think I'm fluent enough for operating here.
• 86.23.109.101 said also that "Look at the issue that stated this thread for example, it is completely reasonable to expect an editor with a history of NPOV and copyright issues to use AFC, but Jjanhone's attitude is that unless it is a hard line requirement in policy they are not going to do it and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it." And there's a reason for that. I've made some edit requests in the past and they've stayed unanswered for months, even years. The reason I started the discussion yesterday was to get a decision from a broader community if I could continue editing Wikipedia with the old way or if I need to change the way. As long as the policy says "should" instead of "must", there's this possibility in the air, just as ToBeFree mentioned. Ping also HouseBlaster & Yamla
• Snow_Rise was thinking that "I suspect they might just be encouraged to try a ban evasion and start up with a new account, since they don't seem to have one major client to be linked to and thus easily caught for socking for. And after-all, that's kind of why we have the COI policy that we do now. Not because many of us think it is a good thing they are here, or that paid editors should be allowed just because of how WP:ABOUT starts, but because it keeps these otherwise problematic editors working within a framework with better oversight." I'm not tempted to create new accounts but in case my ban stays, I guess I start teaching my customers to edit their own content from now on. I hope teaching is not considered "meatpuppetry"!
• Snow_Rise also mentioned the old case "it seems a very convincing case of some combination of socking and meatpuppetry operation". The case was that all the pages I had ever edited in En-Wikipedia (and even some that I had not edited but that I had marked as my customers) were marked with a tag saying they contain paid content and are that's why problematic. As the guide tells that when ever this kind of tag is added it must contain a reasoning too. It wasn't, other than that I had disclosed. I got upset because of this because as I felt it was not fair at all. Why was I the only paid editor who was being tagged this way? The guide also told that if the tag was added without reasoning ANYONE is entitled to remove it. I told about this to my customers and some of them removed the tag. So that was my sin, I never socked and have not asked my customers to edit themselves since. For that case I already got my punishment. How many times can I be punished for something I did years ago?
• Athaenara said also here that "It seems to me that User:Jjanhone may be making a tidy little living out of editing Wikipedia". So is my sin also that I've edited too much? On John Broughton's list of paid editors there's only seven accounts mentioned. I believe he has done good job in finding us so the amount of paid editors who follow the COI rules is not even two handfuls. The last edits of these users are: BC1278 (22 May 2022), CorporateM (18 Aug 2022), Mr RD (25 Dec 2021), Birulik (11 Nov 2021), WWB Too (25 Aug 2022) and 16912 Rhiannon (19 Jul 2022). And I was editing yesterday.
• So let me ping also some users here: PackMecEng, Celestina007, Rhododendrites, Wittylama, Xeno, Levivich, Swarm, Wugapodes, Beagel, Chetsford, Eyitayo_Alimi, DoubleGrazing, Finnusertop, Cerebellum, Oaktree_b, Nupamjo, Ljleppan, HighKing, Jtbobwaysf, Taavi, Apalsola, John_Broughton, BC1278, CorporateM, Mr_RD, Birulik, WWB_Too, 16912_Rhiannon, Peteforsyth

The part above was copied to the AN thread, thank you for that Sandstein . The part below is not there, so I make a break here so it's easier to point what I've added since the copying. Jjanhone (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me respond to the points you raised about my comments specifically.

  Is en-Wikipedia meant for native English speakers only? No, and nowhere in my comment do I say that. If you are operating as a paid editor, however, the expectations are implicitly different and the content you are adding to the project should be damn near perfect and should not require volunteer editors to donate their time to clean up after you. As a paid editor you are not going to be treated as a rando on the internet for whom trying their best is often good enough, you are going to be treated as a professional writer which comes with a different set of expectations. When you have created or edited an article for a client other editors should not then have to come along to remove promotional crud [21] [22] or turn the thing into a redirect because it it "hopeless" [23]. The constant minor English mistakes are only one part of the issue (e.g. why does Neova have a section called "critic", is that supposed to be "criticism"?) but should not be present regardless in paid work, the bigger issue is the addition of promotional language. Why does Valmet have a section called "Valmet reborn" - that sounds like something from promotional material, not an academic encyclopaedia. Why does your sandbox contain language like and realised they had something special in their hands - does that sound like formal encyclopaedic writing?

  Your second bullet point is again wikilawyering around the edges of the problem and missing the main point. The paid editing guidelines were written with a big does of WP:AGF on the basis that most paid editors would recognise that they are, at best, unwelcome house guests and that they need to treat editing this project like they are walking on eggs. Yes, the policies say that direct paid editing is super duper ultra discouraged but is technically permitted, but you have demonstrated over years and years of contributions and thousands of edits that you cannot write in a neutral, encyclopaedic style and that your edits require clean-up by others. You have been asked over and over and over to use edit requests and AFC and have refused to do so - you should have got the message years ago and should have been doing this out of respect of your follow editors who have had to spend their time cleaning up after you, but instead you are choosing to bicker over the wording of the policy instead of understanding the principles and ideas behind them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer 86.23.109.101. I'm ready to change the way I edit from now on if I'm given a change. So far I've used the option to edit directly but I understand that the door may now be closed for me. Earlier I've been only strongly recommended to use these processes - they were not required from me. PS. I'm unable to edit my sandbox so I cannot update that, nor my user page.Jjanhone (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Smartse said that I'm "seemingly unable to change". I've said here that I'm ready to change the way I edit from now on. For me it is not a sign of refusing to change?
• And as Pawnkingthree noticed, I was banned early this morning before I had the change to speak up for myself in the AN discussion. Yesterday the blocker Athaenara [24] said "Yes, I'd like to block her. I'd be even happier to see someone else block her." So I was surprised they decided to block me themself even if they waited someone else to do it for them.
• (Just passing, saw what was happening, thought I'd add a comment in the hope it might help you understand). Usually, if an editor's English is not perfect, or if their contributions to the encyclopedia need a bit of work from others to bring them up to standard, then that is not a problem at all. In fact, the people who patrol new pages have always seemed like a very helpful, skilful, and hard-working group of volunteers to me. They certainly put in a lot of work helping people with their new contributions. But that's all about volunteer contributions. When it comed to paid contributions, the attitude of people who would otherwise be happy to help is understandably not the same. Why should someone else be expected to do part of the work to get a new article up to the required standard when you get all the money? Put yourself in their position and think how you might feel. No, when you are paid to create content on Wikipedia, your contributions need to be pretty close to perfect. You need to have the competence and skills to write professional level material without anyone else having to do any work on it at all. If the quality of your work is anything less than near-perfect, then you are profiting from the hard work of other people who are volunteering and don't receive a penny for their work. It's no good offering, now, to try to do things a different way, if that way (eg via AFC) still creates significant work for unpaid volunteers. Does this, in any way, help you understand why so many people are so angered by the fact that you have been making work for unpaid volunteers for years while you pocket the cash? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting Boing! said Zebedee. I do understand the problems between voluntary and paid editors but after all, even if many users are against paid editing per se, it is still allowed. As the way the editors who follow the COI rules are treated is pretty rough, most of the paid editors have chosen not to reveal themselves making it harder for the big audience to see what has been edited for money. So far I've not followed the wish of start using the AFC and RE processes as they are based totally on the work of unpaid volunteers. One can't do anything without their help, not even update the latest figures of a company. My *opinion* is that Wikipedia needs more editors, but the editors who edit as part of their work are not very welcome. Have you read any of the articles I've written? Here's a list of all articles I've started and here's their pageviews. Only one of the articles (as far as I know) contains a warning about rough translation, Incap. Since the tag was added in June a native English speaker has checked the article so it should be ok. Typically all the translations I've added have been done by professionals who've translated the text I've either written or checked. Jjanhone (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all the translations I've added have been done by professionals who've translated the text I've either written or checked – 🤦. You can only contribute text that you own the copyright of to Wikipedia, Jjanhone, otherwise the declaration you make with every edit to irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL is meaningless. If someone else has translated the text, then they own the copyright and they either need to verify that you have their permission or (preferably) add it themselves. Could you please identify which edits of yours are translations or other texts written by others? – Joe (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me a page where this has been described in detail? Jjanhone (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DERIVATIVE. If someone translates text you have written they create a derivative work. You own the copyright of the Finnish original, the translator owns the copyright of the translation (unless they agreed to transfer those rights as part of the translation). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a mention about this on the translating Wikipedia articles guides? If not, it should be added. Translating articles is not just putting words after another, one need to check the original sources and know some wikicode and practices.Jjanhone (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not a problem if you add text you've translated (because you own the copyright). It is a problem if you add text someone else has translated (because they own the copyright). You seem to be saying above that you have written articles, then got a professional translator to translate them into English. Am I understanding that right? And if so, which articles? – Joe (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Joe Roe for not answering earlier, but my business model has changed lately and I've been busy with that. As you've noticed from this page my memory is leaking, I don't remember everything that has happened to me, nor everything that has been told to me. So as my user page has been deleted I don't even remember what articles I've edited and for who (that was documented on that page) and that makes it hard to co-operate with this. Would it be possible to get it back?

You left a word "typically" out of the green line that you are quoting.

But during the past 12 years there has been different kind of cases. I've got some foreign customers while most of them are Finnish. Usually the edits for the articles related to Finnish customers have been done based on the Finnish Wikipedia article which is CC-BY-SA 3.0, compatible to English Wikipedia. Sometimes I've done the translations myself and let the customer proofread it for terms and such, sometimes they've translated the whole article and I've picked parts of that to English Wikipedia (and altered the translation myself while doing it). There are tags saying that "this article contains a translation from Finnish Wikipedia article" on the corresponding talk pages. Yesterday one of my customers left a note here about their role in the process. Is it ok now?

I've written to The Volunteer Response Team to explain my case.

PS. I noticed that Outotec article was reverted. As this company does not exist anymore would it be possible to change the first line from "Outotec Oyj is a Finnish company", to "Outotec Oyj was a Finnish company"? I cannot make a formal ER anymore, can I? Jjanhone (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make any edit requests, period. You are blocked (and banned), and the only thing you may use your talk page for is for messages directly related to the block. Using your talk page for other purposes, such as asking people to edit articles on your behalf, may result in revocation of talk page access. And I'm not sure what you expected from emailing the volunteer response team, but they have no special authority and are not going to lift your ban. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the transparency. Answer was related to the CCI investigation and question about translations and I notified about the discussion and that she should reply to @Joe Roe. --Zache (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By community consensus, as expressed in this discussion, you are banned from editing Wikipedia; see WP:SBAN. Sandstein 06:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing Sandstein . The reason I was banned was

I argue that, due to the obvious incompetence of Jjanhone's editing (including but not limited to constant copyright violations and the constant pettifogging about them) we should be removing Jjanhone from the project entirely. Any other user who repeatedly commits copyright violations on this scale would already be indefinitely blocked, and it's clear they have no interest in listening to valid criticism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeed spoke for myself and for my rights for paid editing and obviously didn't give up soon enough. I've listened to critism and have changed the way I act based on that. I was actually just doing that related to this case. On Thursday I was warned about "spammy" content I had written and asked why it was in main space instead of Draft space. I was ready to start working on the article there and asked help in moving my version to draft space (I could have moved the latest version but not the version history which would have revealed that I was accused for UPE while I had disclosed in two places) but instead the editors started to insist that I should be now banned. I wanted to hear more opinions and went to AN to ask if paid editing is still allowed. Soon I was muted with a ban and was not given opportunities to speak for myself in the most important discussion during my Wikipedia career.

I also want to thank the EN-WP-community. Even if my talk page is full of complaints (I've never blanked it), there has been nice moments during my time here too. I don't know if it is possible to get my editing rights (or part of them) back some day or if this was a final decision. In case someone still wants to speak for me, now or later, please feel free to tell your thoughts below. If you are against my editing you can continue writing on the threads above this. (Thanks also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isabelle_Belato & JIP) Cheers! Jjanhone (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation here. We don't have editing "rights", we have editing privileges. Because you have consistently abused yours, they have been taken from you. – Athaenara ✉ 16:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Molok logo 2021.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cimcorp logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fingersoft logo black-1024x1024.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Orthexgrouplogo2019.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Cimcorp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Listed at WP:CP since Sept 24

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Framery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Listed at WP:CP since Sept 24

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in Porvoo has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Raute-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DA-Group logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pentik logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]