User talk:Johnsaavn

whoa.

Why are you blocking me? I am trying to update information on Wikipedia that is factually inaccurate; I've provided well over 5 sources, too. I'm the good guy here - trying to edit completely inaccurate info about Lorne Michaels, and replace that inaccurate information with actual information.

I have updated INACCURATE INFORMATION on a Wikipedia page. Not as a paid person working for anyone. I handle social media for Lorne - there is ZERO conflict of interest here. I just want inaccurate information about him being born in Israel removed from his page. I'm the good guy here!

You have repeatedly over-written my edits, all of which are well-sourced, and keep re-posting information about Lorne that simply is not true.

Now, you have blocked me? Come on. Be a little decent. Please unblock me, and let's talk about this. I have REPEATEDLY reached out and offered to discuss this matter on Wikipedia on the talk page and elsewhere. (Redacted)

Let's please discuss this. I am CEO of a social media and digital rep firm - soxcialczars.com. Mr. Michaels has paid me NOTHING on theis Wikiepdia update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are not blocked – yet. If you claim to work for (and/or "handle social media for") the subject of an article you are editing, you have a declared conflict of interest, whether or not you are being paid "by the edit". And unless you can and do supply reliable sources that clearly state he was born in Canada (multiple, since we already have multiple sources that state otherwise), do not change the article to state this. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing further. Understood? General Ization ^Talk 17:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As for "You have repeatedly over-written my edits, all of which are well-sourced", please identify those sources here. I only found one source you supplied, the Vanity Fair link, and it made no mention of Michaels' birthplace (so cannot be used to source a claim that he was born in Canada). General Ization ^Talk 17:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are referring to these sources: ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}, none of them are reliable sources. IMDB is user-edited; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources for why we consider it unreliable. Likewise NNDB. The JVL article cites Wikipedia as its source (plus what is now a dead link at NBC); see WP:CIRCULAR. FamousBirthdays is also user-edited and not reliable for anything. Hollywood.com biographies are also not known to be reliable; see here. General Ization ^Talk 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you may find this essay (not a policy, but a discussion of why some of our policies are what they are) worthwhile: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. General Ization ^Talk 18:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, please STOP posting your email address and phone number here or on any Talk page (or in any edit summary). Doing so is dangerous (for you) and unneeded, because as a matter of policy no Wikipedia editor will call or email you to discuss. Doing so is called original research here and is not permitted. General Ization ^Talk 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Born in Toronto

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lorne-Michaels

Here is a source - brittanica - again statinf Lorne Michaels was born in Toronto.

Surely, that is a legit source?

The others w/ inaccurate info all stem from one article written in 2011 by The Hollywood Reporter.

With due respect to THR, it is not as credible as Brittanica, is it?

Re: Why did you block me?

I will stand down from making further wdits on Wikipedia and will use a request edit form.

But please unblock me. That really isn't fair, or necessary, considering no COI is in play here.

I am a reasonable and fair person who has made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia over several years; really upset that you just blocked me, despite my repeatedly offering contact info and even setting up a talk page to discuss the matter.

Would you please unblock me?

I will abide by the rules, absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please maintain this conversation here, not on my Talk page. There is no good reason for us to be discussing this issue on two separate pages simultaneously.

You are not and have never been blocked. Please see for yourself.

And as I already explained, we will need multiple reliable sources for this change to ignore the three cited sources already present that indicate otherwise. The article history of the Britannica article indicates it may be based in part on the JVL article, which was based at least on part on the state of this Wikipedia article at some point in time. See again WP:CIRCULAR. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

See above. You are not blocked. Canadian citizenship and eligibility for the Order of Canada is not limited to only those born in Canada. I have already addressed the issue of sourcing above. General Ization ^Talk 12:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi... thank you.

Trying to do this correctly - with propoer Wikipedia etiquette and more credible sources.

May I request a change to the Lorne Michaels page?

Here are citations from credible sources that again show Lorne Michaels was born in Toronto.

+ Brittanica - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lorne-Michaels

+ Time Magazine - https://globalnews.ca/news/1942326/toronto-born-snl-creator-lorne-michaels-on-time-100-most-influential-people-list/

+ CBC - http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/lorne-michaels-and-gilda-radner-talk-snl

+ National Post (one of biggest Canadian papers) - http://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/toronto-lawyer-flirted-with-career-in-comedy-thanks-to-fateful-call-from-lorne-michaels

Why are these sources valid? CBC is Canada's largest news network; National Post is among Canada's largest papers; Brittanica and Time Magazine are well-known publications.

If these are acceptable, what is proper etiquette for getting the page changed and updated to reflect that Mr. Michaels' brothplace is, in fact, Toronto?

Please advise - thank you.

Trying to do this correctly!

Johnsaavn (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)johnsaavn }}

You have been given ample warnings above that you must disclose if you are receiving payments to edit, yet have failed to do so. Please read the warning below carefully.

Hello Johnsaavn. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Johnsaavn. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Johnsaavn|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

++

Hi - apologies for causing issues here! Thank you for reaching out and offering me a chance to explain, too.

I am not being paid to post anything; I'm well aware of Wikipedia rules!

Let me be absolutely crystal clear on that: I have not been paid to post anything, by anyone, on Wikipedia.

Happy to discuss.

Happy to stand down until we sort this.

I will refrain from any further direct edits, as per your message, until this has been resolved to your satisfaction.

Sort of surprised, but I will do the necessary to resolve this with you.

Re: Lorne Michaels Page I now have provided citations from Brittanica, CBC, TIME Magazine and the National (major Canadian paper) in an effort to get INACCURATE information off Mr. Michaels Wiki page - and have had no success getting the matter resolved.

The issue: Lorne Michaels was born in Toronto, not Israel.

The source of the "born in Israel" material is an inaccurate 2011 article by "The Hollywood Reporter," which is a far less reliable source than any of the four I have provided.

Yet my submitted changes keep getting overwritten. I am completely open to any way to resolve this that comports with Wikipedia rules. Right now, Wikipedia has terribly inaccurate information about Mr. Michaels' birthplace. I'm only trying to fix a glaring error.

What should I do? Open to guidance! Right now, what's on his page is totally inaccurate.

Re: Federica Marchionni Page Perhaps I should have suggested a page vs publishing one; I cede that point; but the page is extremely well-sourced, and she's absolutely an important enough person to have a Wikipedia page. Again, not being compensated by her - at all. I posted a page for her because she is a well-known Italian-American business exec, and former CEO of Lands' End. I'm active in the Italian-American community; was surprised she did not have a page; so I submitted one. It's extremely well-sourced; she's been profiled in WSJ, NYT, InStyle and more; she's an extremely well-known executive in fashion world; she lectures all the time at Harvard and Stanford. Surely, she's significant enough to have a page?

I will absolutely post nothing until all matters have been resolved to your satisfaction. And thereafter, I am fine with your suggestion not to post any pages directly, and to simply suggest vs actually making edits. No problem.

Please respond and let me know what next steps are here.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Johnsaavn (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)johnsaavn

I will stand down and not submit anything until I hear back from you about how I should (or if I should) proceed going forward.

Please know I respect the effort of Wikipedia editors like you; I believe Wikipedia is a fantastic, global resource; and I did not and would not compromise WP standards.

My sincere apologies for causing any concerns here. But I really do not have a #COI.

Johnsaavn (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)johnsaavn

Thank you for replying and for stopping editing. The article that most caught my eye was Will Dean (businessman) - right from your first edit that article contained his date of birth, but seemingly without a source. You changed it to a different date a few days later. Then there is File:WD_headshot4_approved_Logo_Scrub.jpg which you claim as being your own work, but which has a file name that sounds an awful lot like what a PR professional would have. These are patterns that I've seen associated with paid editing before and it is difficult to see how you could have got the photo and his date of birth and not have a COI. Could you please explain what went on? SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The photo came from the Tough Mudder website. They had a media kit for press on the site - I can't find it now (maybe they took it down)? But it was here: https://toughmudder.com/corporate-team-packages They have the rights to it. The description was taken - verbatim - from that site. If I did not cite it properly, I apologize. The reason why that naming convention was used is that it's the one they used on their site. If you would like me to delete the photo, I certainly can do that.

The birthday part - apologies for that needing a cite - came from here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/11976447/Tough-Mudder-unveils-shorter-event-that-ditches-electric-ice-and-tear-gas-obstacles.html, an article the Telegraph hypes as "we celebrate will's birthday with 13 Chuck Norris facts."

I'm not sure if this answers the question to your satisfaction - but it IS the truth.

I can certainly understand why it raised issues. I apologize for that. That's the last thing I want/wanted!

Johnsaavn (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)johnsaavn

The article Sarah Morrow has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. SmartSE (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Vehicle-to-Government (V2Gov), 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 removed 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. SmartSE (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Federica Marchionni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acumen (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) 11:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted a bunch of your edits because way too much of what you wrote reads of promotion, not objective reporting. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Meant no harm! Had citations for all of it - is the objection to my text, or to the sources used? I can certainly rewrite things if that was the issue here. 19:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)johnsaavn

Your addition to Federica Marchionni has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150820/NEWS07/150829977/inside-lands-ends-quest-for-a-younger-cooler-customer credits as "Photo by Bloomberg" General Ization ^Talk 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I honestly thought this was one of my own photos from that event; I'll find another one. I had it filed that way in a photo folder. Excellent catch, and thank you for it. Johnsaavn (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)johnsaavn

Hello Johnsaavn,

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

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

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

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for message. If you post an article it will be assessed as it stands. If you don't want that to happen, you should write it as a draft. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. You gave some references, but not all seemed to be independent third-party sources. For example, your first ref is to the NY Times, which can often be a proper source, but in this case was simply quoting someone closely associated with the product saying how wonderful his skyr was.
• There is nothing about the company to show why it meets our notability criteria. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits, but you just tell us about what they sell. It doesn't even appear to have a headquarters, either in the US or Iceland
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, but one editor removed some of your text with the comments Distribution: Remove ad copy trying to pass as encyclopedic information. and There's an article on skyr already. This looks, again, like advertising copy. A different (admin) editor then nominated the article for deletion.

• the distribution section is just spam, why do we need to be told where to buy it?
• heirloom skyr cultures creating a creamy texture and complex, mild taste[5] that is protein-rich, naturally low in fat and sugar.[6][7]— pure advertising copy. Even if the ref said this, it's largely opinion presented as a sales pitch

• I notice that you have been repeatedly asked about a conflict of interest of interest which you have repeatedly denied, but in the circumstances you will understand why sorry if we erred on our initial foray here, but we will make changes requested to address your concerns and hopefully, get the page live. does not inspire confidence.

I usually finish these homilies with guidance on how to write an article, but you seem to know what you should be doing, even if you're not actually doing it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the time you took to explain the objections above - thank you for making the issues much clearer for me. I will see if I can fix this so as to comport with WP guidelines. Looks like I have some work to do there - especially on documenting notability. Message received. On the COI part, I used the royal "we" - not sure that particular criticism is fair. The last thing I want to do is to upset WP and its editors - as this is a phenomenal resource. Stay with me. Johnsaavn (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geoffrey von Maltzahn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arlington, Fortune and Fast Company (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) 09:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:DavidPerryIndigo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Geoffrey von Maltzahn.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to your edits on this page. Once I saw him described by you as a "purpose-driven leader," I felt like I was reading a CV and not an encyclopedia article, and I reverted your edits. Looking at your talk page, it's clear that this is not the first time this issue has been raised with you. Are you being paid to promote he people you write about? PaulCHebert (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul - hi! Hope and trust you are well. Saw an article on Indigo and Perry in Harvard Magazine (my alma mater), checked out his WP page (which was pretty bad), and was just updating his page (and making it far better and more thorough). I do not know Perry at all, personally - but he’s a fellow grad and was trying to help his page. I do this for free - and it takes time, too! Slightly disappointed that all edits were all reverted - they were extremely well-sourced, sir (which took time). But on language seeming promotional in parts - perhaps I can do better on that. I will try again. Stay with me. I don’t mind the scrutiny - and I do applaud your vigilance - and I can probably amend some of this to make it acceptable to you. Let me try. Fair? Respectfully, Johnsaavn (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

Thanks for uploading File:DavidPerry-Indigo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Per this edit, are you seriously claiming to be the copyright holder of the image? -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's the issue - this is a photo from the Indigo Agriculture public web site. It's clearly a public domain and usable photo. Yet WP keeps deleting it - I'm not sure what I am doing wrong. Help would be appreciated; I'm trying to do this photo upload correctly, but seem to be making a hash of it. Johnsaavn (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

It is clearly NOT pubic domain as the website footer states " Copyright 2018 Indigo Ag, Inc.". And the footer also includes a link to their terms of use which makes it quite clear that the material from their web site is not public domain. Lying about the license is not acceptable. As for help, the warning notice given above provides links to the appropriate policies and procedures. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am truly sorry. Something is getting lost in translation here. I will do whatever you want me to do here. As per your request, I will remove the photo - and will fix the problem. If necessary, I will get permission from the company to use the photo, in writing. I did not "lie" - I made an error. I absolutely apologize for the error. I am deleting the photo from the page now. OK - looks like you already did that. Let me sort this and get the permissions needed. Johnsaavn (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

The file File:MotorVehicleSoftwareCorporation.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused corporate logo.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whpq (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Icelandic Provisions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Target (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick question: Are you being paid to write ad copy/promotional material thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article by Icelandic Provisions? PaulCHebert (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No - I am not. I was adding to the page because you had flagged it as a stub. I wanted to add more to address those concerns. They are not paying me; I just like the product. I definitely do not want to run afoul of you, Paul - was adding content to address the concern you raised (the stub tag). I can stop - and will. Can also any revert edits if you feel any recent ones are objectionable -- just LMK what you want tossed, and I'll do it. Johnsaavn (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indigo Agriculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sarah Morrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Federica Marchionni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glamour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:SAP CEO Bill McDermott Headshot.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Whpq (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I see you've tried to upload an image of Bill McDermott with the idea that it can be done under fair use. Wikipedia's usage of copyrighted content is much stricter than fair use. Any use of non-free content, including non free images need to follow Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. The use of such a non-free image must also meet all the non-free content criteria. In particular, with respect to replaceability, images of living people are almost always considered replaceable. As such, it is extremely unlikely that any non-free image of Bill McDermott would be accepted. Quoting from the non-free content guidelines

Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.

-- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi - SAP explicitly authorizes the use of the image...here's the detail: 1) See here: https://www.sap-tv.com/stockfootage/ "SAP Stock Footage and Press Photos This media archive contains SAP photos and videos which are ready to use for your journalistic publications and broadcasts. You can easily search in various categories and download the material directly to your own computer."

2) Here is the specific part of that stock footage relating to McDermott: General stock footage - https://www.sap-tv.com/stockfootage/ Exec Board stock - https://www.sap-tv.com/stockfootage/category/61 McDermott stock - https://www.sap-tv.com/stockfootage/medialist/62 (the photo I am trying to upload is the first of the seven McDermott photos)

Am I ok to use it? Is this sufficient? I really have tried to get express permission here - no shortcuts. Let me know, thanks!

Johnsaavn (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

You can only use it if the image is released under a sufficiently free license (any of these). The SAP images are not released under any such license (see https://www.sap.com/corporate/en/legal/terms-of-use.html). -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a bummer. Thought we were good. I am trying (hopefully the good meaning of that word, lol). I do appreciate you keeping me out of trouble here! Johnsaavn (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

Thanks for uploading File:SAP CEO Bill McDermott Headshot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to get all the paperwork done here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries - as you suggested above. And then email the permissions at WP, with some inclusion of consent from SAP. Hopefully this will suffice. The headshot of McDermott now is terribly out of date; truly trying to fix that in good faith here, but totally understand why Wikipedia required the licenses on photos. I'll get these done. Johnsaavn (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Johnsaavn

The article Ronald O. Perelman Heart Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, tagged as such for almost five years.

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. Ifnord (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MER-C 15:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Johnsaavn (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Why would you do this? I do not have any COI; I do not receive compensation for any edits we do; I go out of our way to discuss any issues that are ever raised -- and rectify them immediately. It matters to me to be in good Wikipedia standing, and my talk page illustrates just how hard we have worked to stay in good graces with Wikipedia. To say my entire purpose is advertsing is really an ad hominem attack, and is truly unfair. What can I do here? Do I have any recourse? Can I submit any future work to you before it goes live? Do I have any options at all? Is there anything I can do to get unblocked? Please advise. Johnsaavn (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

Decline reason:

I've had a good look over your contributions here, and I'm seeing a long record of article creations and edits that I rate as indistinguishable from promotion/SEO/reputation management - and from an admitted CEO of a digital reputation management company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To start with, who is "we" ("any edits we do", "we have worked")? General Ization ^Talk 16:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I expect I know the answer: http://socialczars.com/about-social-czars/, per . You may recall I warned you in September 2017 concerning paid (or unpaid, for that matter) promotional editing here. I'm not taking a position on whether or not you have violated Wikipedia policies and/or should remain blocked, but you invite scrutiny when you refer to yourself in the plural, and this affiliation should be clear to the admin who will review your request. General Ization ^Talk 16:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi - my error on that, again. I was using the royal "we." I'm one person only. Is there anything I can do here? I love Wikipedia and am honored to be a contributor. I absolutely will abide (and do abide, and have abided by) by the WP rules. You are one of the Editors/Admins who has helped me to continually improve as a WP contributor - thank you for that. I'm just trying to get unblocked; what can I do? Johnsaavn (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

(edit conflict) Also: I do not personally believe that you perform reputation management for your clients out of the goodness of your heart. You have (for some months now) been very careful to say that you do not receive compensation "for any posts", "for any edits we do", "to post anything", etc., but I strongly suspect that your firm earns a retainer to monitor and potentially influence the reputations of your clients – and if you do so here, that constitutes paid editing, whether or not you are paid specifically by the edit. General Ization ^Talk 16:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As for what you can do to regain the ability to edit (or at least influence edits of) articles here, that isn't up to me, per se, but I suggest a good place to start will be to come clean on your purpose and intent for editing here. After that we can discuss options, assuming there are any. General Ization ^Talk 16:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We are not paid by anyone to edit or to maintain Wikipedia pages. We do contribute to some Wikipedia pages for public figures, and we also post when we see clear inaccuracies on Wikipedia pages. Again: there is no #COI issue here. I don't know why that keeps being alleged? There's nothing to "come clean" about here - your phrase - because we are not being paid to do any Wikipedia work. We're being blocked here based on an allegation that isn't accurate.Johnsaavn (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

Forgive me, and I'm not meaning to disrespect you: but you still appear to me to be hedging your language. Are you paid (through your firm) to manage public figures' social media reputations, wherever they might come to light? My assumption (and I acknowledge that it is just that) is that that is how you pay the bills. General Ization ^Talk 17:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Where I suspect we're going with this is: to regain the ability to edit, you will very likely be required to maintain on your User page a list of those individuals and/or firms whom you count as your clients (and to keep it current), and to agree that you will not edit articles about or directly related to them. This would allow you to edit articles (only) in which you don't have (or have the appearance of) a conflict of interest. While this may seem intrusive, and may even be unacceptable to you, I suspect that this or something like it is the only way you will regain the ability to be an editor here (and I'm genuinely hoping you will be able to reach an accommodation like this, provided that you respect and comply with it). General Ization ^Talk 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely would accept those terms - not a problem. I do reputation work (overwhelmingly SEO and Social Media) for clients. I do not do any Wikipedia work for active, paying clients - because Wikipedia rules expressly forbid such work. Is there a place to submit that list of current clients -- would be happy to do so. That would be a fair and just solution here. Johnsaavn (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

OK; thanks, John (if I may). Having established a possible framework for resolution, let's wait now and see what the responding admin thinks. I suspect they have either been watching our discussion, or will be along shortly. General Ization ^Talk 17:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In the mean time, please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which basically describes the mechanism we have been talking about. While you may maintain that you are not paid for your Wikipedia contributions, we agree, I think, that you are paid by people and/or firms who have Wikipedia articles, and we are discussing a proactive and verifiable method of ensuring that you don't either intentionally or inadvertently cross the line into COI. General Ization ^Talk 18:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have to say I think I'm still seeing evasive words here - "I do reputation work for clients" but "I do not do any Wikipedia work for active, paying clients" (my emphasis). Johnsaavn, can you confirm whether or not you mean you will not edit articles about or directly related to... any clients, past or present, whether or not they are current active paying ones? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree to edit no articles about or directly related to clients, present or past. Would that satisfy the concern raised here? Please advise - I will absolutely abide by Wikipedia rules. I'm truly not attempting to be evasive.Johnsaavn (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

Let's see what the blocking admin says... @MER-C:, any thoughts on the above discussion? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The last three article creations are all promotional: Icelandic Provisions, Anne Fulenwider and Federica Marchionni. User:Johnsaavn/sandbox is bad as well. All of this editor's articles are in subjects prone to covert advertising. I don't believe him. MER-C 18:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, Icelandic Provisions was not created by this editor, though it was created only days before this editor started editing there to expand it significantly, and by an editor who seems to appear frequently and coincidentally in all three articles. John, anything to say about this observation? General Ization ^Talk 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, misread the history. John, is this editor related to you or your firm in some way? (Could well be not; they appear to be a specialist in antispam activities.) General Ization ^Talk 18:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The linkedin page which I believe is Johnsaavn's states "+ Managing company (or celebrity) pages on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Google+, Twitter, Pinterest, Wikipedia, Vine, Tumblr, Quora and more" Lyndaship (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Johnsaavn has admitted, further up this page, that he is the CEO of http://socialczars.com, a Digital Reputation Enhancement company - though it currently does not mention Wikipedia on its home page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: Your reasons for the block referred to failure to disclose paid editing, but I don't see that you initiated any discussion with this editor about the nature of their edits or relationships with the subjects, here or on the Talk page of any of the three articles you mentioned. Did you make an effort to determine whether they were actually a paid editor, or were you simply reacting to what looked to you like paid promotional editing? I don't mean this as criticism, but as appropriate fact-finding concerning the rationale for the block. General Ization ^Talk 19:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Misping: repeating. @MER-C:

There was an earlier version of Icelandic Provisions started by User:Osaeip in March 2017, then edited by Johnsaavn in February 2018 and deleted as promotional that month. User:Osaeip is blocked as a sock of User:Highstakes00. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There was zero communication pre-block. I logged into Wikipedia today to find an editor I don't know (nice to meet you, though, and hope we can resolve this) just decided to block me. That's not right. Icelandic Provisions is not a client; never has been a client; is not paid editing. I do like that product, though - which is why I took time to update the page. To just declare "I don't believe him" - what can I possibly do to change your mind? I've agreed to all the new conditions you suggested. How do we resolve this? Can we?Johnsaavn (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

@Johnsaavn: MER-C's observation about the article in your sandbox also raises another wrinkle here. I assume, relying in good faith on your representations above, that the eponymous "David Carey" is not currently a client or a past client. However, I find myself wondering whether he is a potential client, and whether your business model includes the "Who's Who in America" model of marketing – which is to say that you do some flattering work on behalf of a public figure, and then ask for the contract to maintain. (Again, no disrespect intended, though it may sound that way.) Clearly we cannot require you to declare you will never create or edit any article for anyone who might possibly be a client in the future, but I think you can see how this complicates matters. General Ization ^Talk 19:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: I've been pondering exactly the same possibility, and it is a known way for such companies to tout for business - while still being able to honestly say that their Wikipedia contributions are not for clients, current or past. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, "directly related to clients" needs clarity. Sometimes, PR firms subcontract or otherwise pay other PR/marketing firms to do work for them but on behalf of their client. Anyone that happens to work indirectly for any of these interests needs to reveal this as well. The language will be broadly construed by us regardless of what might be agreed to.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to answer the concerns above - but I'm blocked again. Carey is not a client; he's not a prospective client; he is the #1 guy at the #1 magazine company in the USA, and probably should have a Wikipedia page. That's why I was making one. Johnsaavn (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

And it doesn't do your reputation management company any harm at all if you just happen to have created glowing Wikipedia articles about the kind of people and companies that you might choose to target later as clients. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and David Carey is head of Hearst Magazines, which is a "partner with Condé Nast in the publishing services company, PubWorX". Your company lists Condé Nast as a client here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And, you have been editing Sarah Morrow only a few days ago, and this page also lists Sarah Morrow as one of your company's clients. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's one I lost in an edit somehow... You were recently editing Ronald Perelman, and his company MacAndrews & Forbes is also listed as one of your clients here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, John, but you have been blatantly dishonest with us and you have clearly been using Wikipedia for the purposes of online reputation enhancement for your clients (and most likely for potential future clients too). That is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's WP:COI policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's terms and conditions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I was pinged above. I want to clarify that I am in no way associated with this user. Id you read my edits to the articles he has worked on, you will see that I have been trying to dial back the blatantly promotional aspects of his writing. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC).

Well, John, I think we gave it our best shot. Boing's observations (which I admit are interesting) aside, I think you'll need to accept that an inability to be a Wikipedia editor is an inherent limitation given your line of work, just as bank officers have to accept that they can never be seen at the horse track, or as a fireman can never sell firewood on the side. The nature of your work means that your motives, even if pure, will always be suspect. If you'd like to try again, you'll want to submit another {{unblock}} template to summon yet another set of administrative eyes, but I'm pessimistic that you'll be able to achieve the consensus among admins necessary to regain your editing abilities here. General Ization ^Talk 20:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow.

To address the concerns raised, and hopefully, resolve this issue to your satisfaction....

Re: "Business Model"... that's totally not what I do - at all. We are primarily an SEO and social media firm. I update Wikipedia pages because it's an amazingly valuable resource, and it's an honor to be a contributor. That's it.

Re: Disclosing current clients on my personal page or talk page. Just tell me what would satisfy you, and I will do it.

Re: Icelandic. Not a client, never has been a client, never will be a client. I like the product, though.

Re: Marchionni. Page is not promotional - it's incredibly well-sourced. I update her page because we are both Italian-Americans; as the Former CEO of multi-billion Lands' End and now International CEO of China's #1 luxury retailer, Secoo, she's absolutely newsworthy. She's the first Italian-American woman to lead a Wall Street firm.

Re: Fulenwider. Again - page is tremendously well-sourced. She's EIC for Marie Claire, one of the biggest and most influential women's mags around.

Re: Carey page in progress is similar to Marchionni and Fulenwider - like Fulenwider, he is a HUGE player in magazines. He's the top man at Hearst Magazines, for heaven's sake.

Re: Conde Nast. Let me try and follow the theory. Conde (which owns several thousand properties) and Heart (which owns several thousand properties) are partnered on PobWorx (one property)... do you seriously believe Conde is somehow compensating us for work for Carey - who is not even in their company, or their employ?

Re: Sarah Morrow. Sarah was a client years ago. She is not an active client. I am in no way being compensated for working on her page.

I am willing to cooperate in any way, accept any monitoring, anything you want to be reinstated.

Please consider my humble request.

Thanking you.

Johnsaavn (talk)johnsaavn

Sorry, John, but how dumb do you think we are? You have been evasive, deceitful, and dishonest throughout. Your purpose here has blatantly been for the purpose of enhancing your business, and you have persistently tried to hide that. You have clearly been writing in glowing terms about your clients and people associated with them, and possibly potential future clients too. Given your clear interest in being seen as someone who writes the kind of things that existing and potential users of your company's services will want to see (ie positive reputation enhancement material), you can not be trusted to write in the neutral manner required by Wikipedia. It's not just whether or not you are currently being paid by the clients and ex-clients you write about, but that the kind of material your clients would want you to write (and the kind of material you actually have been writing) is diametrically opposed to the kind of material that is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. As User:General Ization suggests above, even with the best will, your professional role is incompatible with writing at Wikipedia. If you wish to appeal further, you can make a new unblock request. But I rate your chances of success as very low. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing, you say "I update Wikipedia pages because it's an amazingly valuable resource, and it's an honor to be a contributor. That's it." But on your LinkedIn account you openly list Wikipedia as one of the places where you offer your professional services. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Something is getting lost is translation, sadly.

I don't question your intelligence - never did, never would.

I certainly don't question your honesty, motivation, or professionalism.

It's clear I'm not going to be able to persuade you to reconsider, and to unblock me.

Thank you to all editors in this thread for at least hearing me out.

I'll abide by your wishes and cease posting.

Johnsaavn (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

You can still make another unblock request if you wish, and it will be reviewed by another independent admin - neither the blocking admin nor I (as one who has already declined one appeal) would be allowed to review it. As I say, I doubt it would be successful, but I do need to tell you that that option is still open. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand.

I won't be a problem child.

Johnsaavn (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)johnsaavn

• Review Have reviewed the case in question. Agree with the indefinite block. Saying that you never edit your clients article and than you listing Sarah Morrow as a client and you are the major editor. Tagging all the articles these user has created for a indepth check would be supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • User also wrote Skinshift for one of their clients. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    • For the record, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skinshift, he said "I do not work for Skinshift; you are, again, in error - I run my own company in NJ and have no affiliation with this brand." But, while these appeared after the deletion discussion, see this advertisement for them and this client list as of January 2016 for mentions that indicate the possibility that he already had a business relationship with them at the time, and at least supporting the conjecture that his edits were made in the interest of attracting future relationships. In addition, see the notice below about the deletion of a draft he'd written of an article about Relationship Science, which also appears on the 2016 client list. Largoplazo (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Icelandic Provisions, 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. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Johnsaavn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Silverleaf Resorts".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Johnsaavn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anne Fulenwider".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Johnsaavn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Desiree Gruber".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Johnsaavn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Relationship Science".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)