User talk:Romano Writes

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Mr Smith Bot/Great HealthWorks has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Aaron Booth (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Mr Smith Bot/PCSO-524 has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PCSO-524, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at PCSO-524, you may be blocked from editing. Combined with your attempt to create Greath HealthWorks, it seems you are mistaking Wikipedia for an advertising venue. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC) This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Mr Smith Bot, contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * I strongly suggest you do not forget to log in: you and 66.55.168.2 are making the same edits on the same articles. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 15:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request(s)
One unblock request is sufficient. Please pick one of your unblock requests to delete. Alternately, you may delete both and post a new request. Your user talk has been in this situation for two days; please attend to this quickly.  Tide  rolls  00:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just responding to the questions asked above. I guess I was incorrect in putting the answer in a request bracket? Sorry. I will condense the two requests into one:

E-mail
I have received your e-mail. Time was of the essence regarding the state of your user talk. I cannot act on your unblock request for two reasons; first, I do not act on user name changes. This is solely a matter of preference and a prerogative of my capacity as a volunteer on this project. My second concern regards your statement "acting as directed" and the admitted relationship with a principal vis-à-vis the article subject. My aversion to this type of "directed" editing is not shared by all editors, and when executed properly it violates no Wikipedia policies or guidelines. However, I cannot help but believe that when articles are created, or content added, by individuals with a close relationship to the subject of their edits, then a neutral point of view cannot be assured. I do understand that you have been patient and, most likely, have something to offer the project. I will approach other administrators regarding your case to ensure a fair appraisal of your block. Please believe that my actions are not directed by any ill will toward you personally. Thank you again for your patience.  Tide  rolls  01:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say the "promotion" evident in the unblock request was a detailed and honest answer to my question about conflict of interest. While I agree the block was fair for the initial reasons given, I recommend the editor post another unblock request detailing the voluntary restrictions he would be under if unblocked. The editor must understand that creating new articles in areas of a conflict of interest, or adding promotional material to existing articles, will result in a new block that cannot be appealed. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of PCSO-524 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PCSO-524 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 Articles for deletion/PCSO-524 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. slakr \ talk / 05:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on being unblocked. Now go to WP:CHU/Simple and get your username changed before you do anything else. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for unblocking me. I have made the user name change as requested and will certainly abide by the rules.Romano Writes (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

PCSO-524 AfD
You mentioned in your recent unblock request: "I must say that, as someone with no experience editing Wikipedia, that your controls are rather strict."

Well, now you've pretty much had a taste of them, from being blocked to having your first article go through the AFD wringer. That's how "peer review" on Wikipedia works. Articles written by someone with a conflict of interest will always attract closer scrutiny too.

The deletion discussion resulted in improvements to the article and investigations of the sources, to the point where one or two people changed their view from "delete" to "keep", and the article survived because the AFD discussion was closed as "no consensus". "No consensus" on Wikipedia usually means "the status quo stands". However, any closed AFD can be brought to Deletion review if an editor feels the closure was wrong and should be reversed. That's more peer-review, but it focuses on the closing rationale rather than re-hash the arguments already made. It's unlikely to happen for PCSO-524 however. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't need to reply on my talk page. I see replies on the talk pages of others on my watchlist.


 * I also think you need not worry about the article being deleted. It has already survived a deletion discussion.
 * As for further contributions, I would say you should exercise good judgment:
 * If something you want to add is non-controversial and neutral, then add it.
 * If you feel that an addition may be considered promotional due to your conflict of interest, then propose it on the talk page. If no one objects after several days, feel free to make the change.
 * If you want to create a new article on another topic in which you have a COI, create it in your own userspace first User:Romano Writes/MyDraftArticle (name it appropriately), then when you are satisfied that it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and has good sources, use the Articles for creation process to gain acceptance for moving the article into main article space.
 * There is nothing preventing an editor with a COI from creating good content on Wikipedia. Everyone is encouraged to be bold in making edits. Someone with a COI should just use good judgment and exercise caution when needed because your edits will attract more scrutiny. More cautionary actions are proposing changes on talk pages, creating drafts in your userspace and using WP:AFC for new articles.


 * One current practice of yours that you need to change ASAP is your citation style. Look at the cite journal and related templates (cite book, cite web, etc.). Use them. See how I used them to change your citations in the PCSO-524 article. Note that the problems many people found with your citations is that you provided only the title and author of the articles, as well as irrelevant information about the institutions that employed the authors. That isn't sufficient for verification. You need to say where and when something was published, and who published it. The citation templates will help you fill in the correct information.


 * Continue writing articles on topics that meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (WP:GNG and WP:CORP for example) and cite them properly using reliable and verifiable sources, and you should be fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again I greatly appreciate you advise and help. I will do as you suggested and keep my fingers crossed. I am committed to learning the Wiki culture and protocols and continue adding good content.  If it were not for you, the kind actions of JamesBWatson, I wouldn't be here now saying this.  So, again, Thank you. --Romano Writes (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

PCSO-524 survives AfD: the way forward.
May I apologise for having to some extent contributed to what must have been a very unwelcoming start to editing Wikipedia. I'm afraid it did at one time look very much as though your only purpose was posting what amounted to spam for a non-notable product, but I can now see that there is more to it than that. On the other hand, I never thought that such words as "hoax" were justified, and I did, as you may remember, unblock you to give you another chance. I think the closing administrator in the deletion discussion was right, under the circumstances, to close it as "no consensus", and although it would have been more satisfactory to have had a clear consensus to keep, the end result is that the article is kept. I have read your message on Amatulic's talk page. I am pleased to read that your experience has not put you off editing Wikipedia for ever. You say "For someone who has made a living as a science writer in the health and fitness field for the last 25 years I'd say it was indeed a bit embarrassing." I can understand that, but in many ways the sort of requirements needed for writing Wikipedia articles are different from those required in writing elsewhere, and many people when first contributing to Wikipedia find themselves falling foul of the accepted standards in one way or another: certainly I did.

There are various ways you can propose changes to the article without fear of conflict of interest issues. Probably the simplest way is to post a message on the article's talk page, Talk:PCSO-524, suggesting the change you have in mind. However, if you just do that, there is a very good chance that your message will stand there unnoticed for a long time, so you can add the tag with your message, which will cause the page to appear in a list of pages where there are requests for help, and sooner or later someone who checks that list will read your suggestion, and, if you are lucky, will respond to it. You can also ask particular editors for advice or help about particular ideas for changes. I will certainly not mind if you ask me for help, but Amatulic, who has been so helpful to you recently, and has more of a practical scientific background than me, may be more helpful, if he/she is willing to accept such requests. Also, bear in mind that a potential conflict of interest does not completely rule you out from editing the article, and as long as you restrict yourself to unambiguous factual and neutral edits, there should be no problem in editing the article directly, using more indirect approaches whenever there might be doubts as to your neutrality. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No apologies necessary. You had every right to think the way you did in the beginning and I do remember it was you who unblocked me to give me the second chance I needed.  When my associate suggested to me that I take over his attempt in writing the article I knew, especially after reading a good bit of the pages on writing articles, that this project would be a challenge.  In the end I feel that while the controls are indeed strickt, I was fortunate enough to come across both you and  Amatulic who treated me very fairly.  I think the strickt controls are necessary for a resource of this magnitude so I'm not surprised I was given a tour of the wringer.  It all worked out for the best and I look forward to offering this site some good content.  Thank you again for unblocking me and thank you for your advise above.  You can be sure I will be taking you up on your offer of further advise down the road.--Romano Writes (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Great HealthWorks, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of PCSO-524 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PCSO-524 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 Articles for deletion/PCSO-524& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)