User talk:UK alfa

Welcome![edit]

Hello, UK alfa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C.Fred,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on my edit. I offer my sincere thanks and respect for your impartiality and interest in this article and your attempts to resolve it.

I understand that you are questioning my position as editor, but I am not in receipt of any financial or other benefits from Paul Draper's side. I am just one of his listeners, an individual, living in Asia, and getting knowledge about Paul Draper through news and social networking.

In my opinion, Wikipedia is not the place to collect personal views by anonymous members of the public on Twitter or Facebook. As a celebrity, there are many different views about him. If I were to create an article here collecting only the positive side opinions praising him, how much public value would it have? I have great concern about editing aimed at judging his personality rather than his music, for better or worse, and it is my view that Wikipedia does not need excessive praise or defamation. UK alfa (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I did go through and remove a fair bit from the article: not because it was negative, but because it was not reliably sourced. The portion that remains had been covered in a newspaper. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, C.Fred.

I would like to thank you again for responding to my views and for your remarks on the content. I have understood your point of view. I have prepared a draft on the description of Nottingham. I would very much appreciate your proofreading and would like to ask you to make changes to the article.

- The point about Paul Draper being taken off stage by the manager is, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect. I could find no such reference in the referenced article.

- As for the 32 references, the source is an anonymous individual's Twitter feed, which is of questionable impartiality.

I apologise for the inconvenience, but I would appreciate a proofreading of the following text. Your assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

----------

In 3 March 2018, Draper walked off stage at the Rescue Rooms in Nottingham after having become increasingly disorientated and distracted during the set. The show was described as being a "chaotic, shambolic embarrassment",[31] The following day, Draper issued a press release apologising for the show and claimed that a "personal issue raised its head just prior to the gig" that had upset him, so that he lost focus.[34]

--------------- UK alfa (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Draper's statement is, apparently, Draper's verified Twitter feed. Including replies from others is reasonable and appropriate. I did edit back some of the text, as I couldn't find sourcing for some of the claims about how he appeared on stage or left it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

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

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

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:UK alfa. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=UK alfa|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. As an account whose only focus is on Draper's article, and given the history of editors with conflicts of interest, you must disclose your relationship (if any) with Draper. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Although you have not technically violated Wikipedia policy regarding edit warring (the three-revert rule), your editing at Paul Draper (musician) is clearly a form of slow edit warring, and will ntot be tolerated. Please discuss your differences with the other editor on the article's talk page, or risk being blocked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They use sources that Wikipedia states are not appropriate or repeat the same edits without giving a reason. If they have made claims as if I am causing an edit war, it is highly regrettable.

Wikipeida has a page on Reliable sources and I edit according to its rules. Each time I make a change to a page, I include a note with the rationale for the edit.

I continue to patiently ask other editors to include a rationale for their edits based on Wikipedia's rules when making changes. Unfortunately, they do not seem willing to abide by those rules. You can see the trajectory of this by checking the edit log.

All I am asking for is for the page to be operated according to Wikipedia's rules and, for now, I will continue to ask other editors to edit the page according to the rules. UK alfa (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit war, it doesn't matter who is "right" and who is "wrong". There is disputed content, so the dispute must be resolved by discussion, not by constant reverting and re-reverting. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agreed with your pointed out.

In the event of a disagreement about a statement on wikipedia, I will try to clarify the issue and discuss it more directly with them than ever before, instead of making immediate changes.

Unfortunately, so far they have not been willing to answer the call when I have asked them to clarify which points they disagree with and why. If they do not respond to the consultation itself in the future, I will take other appropriate steps, such as applying for protection of the page.

I thank you for your suggestion to keep wikipedia in order.

Please note that Twitter is used as a source of information for some of the 'Controversies' on the page on Paul Draper in its current state. I would like to remove this part as I think it is an inappropriate quote, is it possible for you to do this? Or should I do it myself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Thanks for your help. UK alfa (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Paul Draper (musician)) for undeclared COI editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may no longer edit the Draper article. It is abundantly clear (as it likely was to C.Fred) that you have a conflict of interest, and your avoiding the issue only makes that more likely. You can continue to use the article talk page, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am one of Paul Draper's listeners and not an associated person. I have received no benefit whatsoever and am not taking instructions from anyone. I do not reside in the UK.

I have made edits in accordance with Wikipedia rules while inviting discussion on the talk page. I would be grateful if you could let me know what the problem is.

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please note that I have already replied to C.Fred last March that I am not an official or management official of Paul Draper. UK alfa (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Whether you work for him or are just a listener(I'm not sure), you clearly are too invested in the topic of Paul Draper to edit the article itself. I see no reason to remove the partial block. You may propose edit requests on the talk page or edit the roughly 6.6 million other articles here. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2023 (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.

UK alfa (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell us what exactly is the problem?Daily Mail is clearly problematic as a resource. I was also aware that Social Media is not recognized as a resource, am I mistaken? And what exactly is a 'conflict of interest'? 118.155.109.207 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:conflict of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I am not affiliated with Paul Draper. I have not received any benefit whatsoever. I have already answered this point last March. UK alfa (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you are capable of editing this article neutrally. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]