User talk:Willory

Hi Hookandpan, Welcome to Wikipedia (somewhat belatedly)! Concerning your edits on Greg Otterholt‎, please read the advice on Conflict of interest and Verifiability. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello Hookandpan. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, 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:Hookandpan. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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. MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear MrOllie. Thank you for your diligence and thorough knowledge and explanation of Wikipedia rules and standards.  I'm afraid I'm a novice compared to you and recognize that this platform is cumbersome to try and keep up with all the standard operating procedures as little as I contribute.  To assure you though, I'm not an employee of this person or his company and have not been compensated for these comments.  I only rarely contribute to the few topics, organizations, or people I know about or follow.  Thus, I'm no expert on Wikipedia.  I am thankful for any help you can be to make this a better article though.  Sincerely, Hookandpan (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: In fact, I had to watch a tutorial just simply to understand even how to respond to a message. Lol - I hope I did this correctly. Hookandpan (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your choice of username is an amazing coincidence, then. - MrOllie (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear MrOllie. The nature of your continued obstruction to legitimate and sourced edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding this page or the person featured on it.  I would request that you cease from the destructive elimination of new information and instead be a constructive member and enhance the display of information contained on this page.  Wikipedia is meant to be a constructive, accurate, and current platform.  Please invest your energy in maintaining these constructive goals or recuse yourself from making any further changes to this page.  Sincerely, Hookandpan Hookandpan (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No. That article was a big promotional mess and was nowhere near a policy compliant Wikipedia article. I will not recuse myself from cleaning up any article like that. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please MrOllie, Your combative tone and retaliatory edits are only solidifying the case against you having a conflict of interest on this page. It is time you recuse yourself from interacting with this page. talk Hookandpan (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically, your username appears to represent an organization, which is by itself a violation of our username policy. Additionally, you are apparently an single-purpose account engaged in obvious advertising and/or promotion. An editor has inquired about what is going on, and you have responded in a combative and uncooperative manner, in contravention of our policies and guidelines. Therefore you have been blocked indefinitely. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (preface: not an admin) Anyone can edit, but they have to follow the rules. One of those rules is the username policy, which states that a username cannot represent an organization or otherwise indicate shared use. Another is the conflict of interest policy, which states that editors, especially those who are paid or otherwise have financial stake in their edits, must declare that. Your edits have been to your "area of expertise" inasmuch as they've been edits to subjects directly related to the company you appear to be affiliated with. Last, it's Jimmy/Jimbo Wales, not Walsh. Now, if you want to be unblocked, I recommend you re-read Swarm's message above, suggest a new username, and propose areas you want to edit which are unrelated to your COI. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greg Otterholt


The article Greg Otterholt has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Near-orphan article with no reliable sources cited"

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 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 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. kingboyk (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

globally renamed Hookandpan to Willory
globally renamed Hookandpan to Willory --  Deep fried  okra    00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editing
This is not a "perception" of problematic editing. You, under the username of a producer, seemed to have promoted and advertised your own commercial products on Wikipedia. Until you come 100% clean about who you are, who you work for, and what you're doing here, rather than blaming Wikipedia's "changing expectations", you will not be unblocked. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear ~Swarm~, Admittedly, I'm a novice here.  The full disclosure is that I'm an independent user who did not have a COI when I started contributing to Wikipedia about 14 years ago.  I see now that there is a COI because I had a part in producing material that was mentioned on the page in question.  I remain independent and though I'm not a prolific contributor, I would still like the ability to remain a part of Wikipedia and contribute where it's appropriate for me to do so, and in a fashion that adheres to the policies established.  I humbly ask for your forgiveness and grace to allow me that opportunity. Sincerely, Willory (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Greg otterholt.jpg


The file File:Greg otterholt.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused personal photo. Out of scope. Article PROD-ed back in 2020"

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 01:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)