User talk:Ellanogabard

This is Ellanogabard's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Hello, Ellanogabard, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Ellanogabard/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ellanogabard! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Ellanogabard/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Water pillow (June 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CoconutOctopus were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Water pillow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CoconutOctopus talk 16:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Water pillow (June 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

Pointless to resubmit without addressing the issues. S0091 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Water pillow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Ellanogabard. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

I can make the declaration for you on your User page which will satisfy that requirement. Just let me know if you are ok with me doing so. Having a COI does not preclude you from continuing to work on the draft but as I said on my talk page, I don't think you are able to make a neutral draft. That's not a knock on you because it is inherently difficult which has been proven time and again people with a COI usually cannot write a neutral article and the reason Wikipedia has the COI guidelines. S0091 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and a thing called the "water pillow" was around at least by the late 1800s. Including that would make a much more interesting and holistic article about its history. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Water pillow (June 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Vanilla Wizard were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unfortunately, too much of this draft is either unsourced or improperly sourced, and it has yet to be established that the topic is notable enough for its own standalone page.

Some sentences make several claims, but only cite sources for 1-2 of them. Take for example this sentence: "Following publication of the study, water pillows were referenced in several consumer and medical publications, including Modern Medicine, Remedy, Vogue[6], Arthritis Today, Self, Medical Post and Popular Science, typically in discussions of sleep ergonomics and non-pharmaceutical neck pain relief.[2]"

That's 7 outlets named, but only 2 are sourced. The rest will need citations.

When taking a closer look at the two sources provided (Vogue and Popular Science), we can see that these are just very brief passing mentions of water pillows in very large magazines. In the case of Vogue, it's a single paragraph about water pillows in a hundreds of pages long edition. We'll need coverage that's a little more in-depth to establish the topic is notable enough for its own page.

Looking at the references section, I also noticed that some citations display incorrect dates. Several sources erroneously list the access date (e.g. 2025-06-10) as the date of publication, when often times these sources are actually from 1997, not 2025. There are other smaller errors, such as the statement "A typical water pillow consists of three components:" preceding a list of four, not three, components.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Water pillow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I now understand why my account was blocked, and I hope once you hear my story you can consider lifting the block, thank you in advance for your time.

I initially created a Wikipedia article about the water pillow using a Mediflow email (I now know people can't see my email). At the time, I hadn’t read the full Wikipedia guidelines, and I didn’t realize that editing an article about something connected to my family or employer required a COI disclosure. When the draft wasn’t approved, I suspected my email might be affecting the review, so I created a second account using my personal email and started over. I understand now that this was a mistake and is considered sockpuppetry, another part of the Wikipedia policy that I didn't I didn't read (I am 21 and have now realized how important it is to read policies before doing things).

I’m an engineering student at Dalhousie University, and I created the article because I wanted to improve my technical writing and contribute something informative on a topic I’m familiar with. I wasn’t trying to advertise, and I genuinely tried to follow a neutral tone and use credible sources. I was inspired by how pages like “Orthopedic pillow” and “Electric cars” include product history and inventors, so I thought I could structure the article similarly.

I now understand Wikipedia policy much better, especially around COI and multiple accounts. I have always used Wikipedia and have just discover how fun it is to publish articles to the world, I understand why I was rightfully blocked but I would love to continue to edit Wikipedia from my own personal account (ellanoga) and maybe try to get my article back up. I worked hard on it and I am super proud of what I have written (but that is up to all the fine editors of wiki to determine if it is wiki worthy). Thank you for considering my case and I hope you have a nice rest of your day. Ellanogabard (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=
I now understand why my account was blocked, and I hope once you hear my story you can consider lifting the block, thank you in advance for your time.
I initially created a Wikipedia article about the water pillow using a Mediflow email (I now know people can't see my email). At the time, I hadn’t read the full Wikipedia guidelines, and I didn’t realize that editing an article about something connected to my family or employer required a COI disclosure. When the draft wasn’t approved, I suspected my email might be affecting the review, so I created a second account using my personal email and started over. I understand now that this was a mistake and is considered sockpuppetry, another part of the Wikipedia policy that I didn't I didn't read (I am 21 and have now realized how important it is to read policies before doing things).

I’m an engineering student at Dalhousie University, and I created the article because I wanted to improve my technical writing and contribute something informative on a topic I’m familiar with. I wasn’t trying to advertise, and I genuinely tried to follow a neutral tone and use credible sources. I was inspired by how pages like “Orthopedic pillow” and “Electric cars” include product history and inventors, so I thought I could structure the article similarly.

I now understand Wikipedia policy much better, especially around COI and multiple accounts. I have always used Wikipedia and have just discover how fun it is to publish articles to the world, I understand why I was rightfully blocked but I would love to continue to edit Wikipedia from my own personal account (ellanoga) and maybe try to get my article back up. I worked hard on it and I am super proud of what I have written (but that is up to all the fine editors of wiki to determine if it is wiki worthy). Thank you for considering my case and I hope you have a nice rest of your day. [[User:Ellanogabard|Ellanogabard]] ([[User talk:Ellanogabard#top|talk]]) 19:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=
I now understand why my account was blocked, and I hope once you hear my story you can consider lifting the block, thank you in advance for your time.
I initially created a Wikipedia article about the water pillow using a Mediflow email (I now know people can't see my email). At the time, I hadn’t read the full Wikipedia guidelines, and I didn’t realize that editing an article about something connected to my family or employer required a COI disclosure. When the draft wasn’t approved, I suspected my email might be affecting the review, so I created a second account using my personal email and started over. I understand now that this was a mistake and is considered sockpuppetry, another part of the Wikipedia policy that I didn't I didn't read (I am 21 and have now realized how important it is to read policies before doing things).

I’m an engineering student at Dalhousie University, and I created the article because I wanted to improve my technical writing and contribute something informative on a topic I’m familiar with. I wasn’t trying to advertise, and I genuinely tried to follow a neutral tone and use credible sources. I was inspired by how pages like “Orthopedic pillow” and “Electric cars” include product history and inventors, so I thought I could structure the article similarly.

I now understand Wikipedia policy much better, especially around COI and multiple accounts. I have always used Wikipedia and have just discover how fun it is to publish articles to the world, I understand why I was rightfully blocked but I would love to continue to edit Wikipedia from my own personal account (ellanoga) and maybe try to get my article back up. I worked hard on it and I am super proud of what I have written (but that is up to all the fine editors of wiki to determine if it is wiki worthy). Thank you for considering my case and I hope you have a nice rest of your day. [[User:Ellanogabard|Ellanogabard]] ([[User talk:Ellanogabard#top|talk]]) 19:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=
I now understand why my account was blocked, and I hope once you hear my story you can consider lifting the block, thank you in advance for your time.
I initially created a Wikipedia article about the water pillow using a Mediflow email (I now know people can't see my email). At the time, I hadn’t read the full Wikipedia guidelines, and I didn’t realize that editing an article about something connected to my family or employer required a COI disclosure. When the draft wasn’t approved, I suspected my email might be affecting the review, so I created a second account using my personal email and started over. I understand now that this was a mistake and is considered sockpuppetry, another part of the Wikipedia policy that I didn't I didn't read (I am 21 and have now realized how important it is to read policies before doing things).

I’m an engineering student at Dalhousie University, and I created the article because I wanted to improve my technical writing and contribute something informative on a topic I’m familiar with. I wasn’t trying to advertise, and I genuinely tried to follow a neutral tone and use credible sources. I was inspired by how pages like “Orthopedic pillow” and “Electric cars” include product history and inventors, so I thought I could structure the article similarly.

I now understand Wikipedia policy much better, especially around COI and multiple accounts. I have always used Wikipedia and have just discover how fun it is to publish articles to the world, I understand why I was rightfully blocked but I would love to continue to edit Wikipedia from my own personal account (ellanoga) and maybe try to get my article back up. I worked hard on it and I am super proud of what I have written (but that is up to all the fine editors of wiki to determine if it is wiki worthy). Thank you for considering my case and I hope you have a nice rest of your day. [[User:Ellanogabard|Ellanogabard]] ([[User talk:Ellanogabard#top|talk]]) 19:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I don't want to decline your appeal, at least not yet, but I will tell you why I don't want to accept it, either, in case that helps you figure out the way forward from here. I can sort of buy the explanation as to how the second account Ella Noga, came about, and put it down to innocent mistake rather than intentional deception. However, your objective here is clearly to promote a product with which you have a close relationship and an obvious COI, and that puts the entire edit history of both your accounts – as well as the very fact that you have two accounts – in a somewhat different light. Even then, if you said you'll drop that subject and focus on intergalactic space travel or Baroque opera or something, I'd be prepared to support your appeal. But instead you say you want to continue in the earlier vein and "maybe try to get my article back up", and that's where you lost me, I'm afraid. Maybe another admin will look at this more clemently. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for your review and I understand what you are saying. Again I am trying to be has truthful as possible I was just trying to work on my technical writing not promote a product. I tried my best to have a natural tone but I now understand that no matter how hard I can try since I have a COI it will never truly be neutral even if I can't see it. Thank you for taking the time to read my appeal and give me back constructive feedback, I honestly apricate it.

This is why I was asking you the questions I did at User talk:Ella Noga about what you want to do here. If your main goal is to pursue creating an article regarding anything with which you have a COI (the pillow, the company, anything having to do your father, yourself, other family members, other organizations with which you are involved, etc.), you likely will not be unblocked. S0091 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]