User talk:Hairmer

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff Charney (September 24)

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

Jamiebuba (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hairmer! 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! Jamiebuba (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff Charney (October 16)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by MaxnaCarta was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Coverage is routine. Entire draft sniffs of puffery.

MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jeff Charney has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jeff Charney. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russ Klein (December 20)

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

Jamiebuba (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Per Leth-Nissen (December 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba was: 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:Per Leth-Nissen 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.

Jamiebuba (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jeff Charney has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jeff Charney. Thanks! Tails Wx 17:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff Charney has been accepted

Jeff Charney, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jewelmer (April 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 Theroadislong was: 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:Jewelmer 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

John Houghton (apothecary)

added a link pointing to Corpus Christi College

Sir William Dudley, 1st Baronet

added a link pointing to Clopton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jewelmer has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jewelmer. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Richard Wolf (director) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Richard Wolf (director). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Wolf (director) has been accepted

Richard Wolf (director), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jewelmer (August 26)

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

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jewelmer has been accepted

Jewelmer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brandon Rembert has been accepted

Brandon Rembert, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

It seems I was banned due to the association with other paid editors that tried to make a page for Chirag Shah. I was recently hired to create the Wikipedia page for Chirag Shah, and I can provide evidence of this engagement if needed. I have no connection to the previous editors who attempted to work on his page, nor am I aware of the circumstances that led to their bans—though I suspect they may have been undisclosed paid editors. After encountering issues with those earlier editors, Mr. Shah sought new assistance, which is how I became involved. Unlike them, I have fully disclosed my paid editing activity. I’ve been editing Wikipedia since 2022 and have consistently complied with the platform’s disclosure requirements. I respectfully request that you reconsider and restore my access, as I am not a sockpuppet of the individuals in question. This appears to be a case of mistaken identity, and I am confident that I can clarify any concerns. I’m happy to provide screenshots or documentation to verify that I was recently hired for this project. In addition, it appears that the admin has also deleted the page for Brandon Rembert which was accepted in AFC on Feb 5, 2025 and he has also deleted pending AFC for Kendall Van Keuren-Jensen. I kindly request that these also be restored. This all does not make sense to me. If a subject is deemed to be notable and already accepted in AFC, why should they be deleted without an AFD and community voting? Hairmer (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked per discussion. Izno (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Both of the pages I deleted were word-for-word copies of the articles added to Wikipedia by the sockpuppets with which you are now associated. So either a) you are a sock of one or the other, or b) you have added copyright violations on Wikipedia as you did not appropriately attribute the text to those prior sockpuppets (or as likely, their sources at the respective companies) (which is its own speedy deletion criterion, but the end result is the same for the two pages of interest). Which of the two is it? Izno (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to both clients, including Brandon Rembert. In each case, the clients hired me after unsuccessful experiences with other editors. They both owned the copyright to the content they provided, as it was created as a work-for-hire. According to copyright law, such content belongs to the client—not the freelancer.

I can also assure you that the articles were not direct, word-for-word copies. I made substantial edits and improvements, including removing promotional language and unreliable sources and adding additional content. If you have access to the original drafts, you’re welcome to compare them. Yes some sentences may have remained from prior copies, but in its entirety they are not word-by-word copies. If you believe the content raises copyright concerns, I’d be more than willing to revise and rewrite it accordingly. So please go ahead and restore my access and I will resubmit new copies for your review.

Again, I guarantee you that I am not associated with the past freelancers and evidence of hiring can be provided with dates corresponding to roughly a few weeks prior to the AFC submissions. Hairmer (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

They both owned the copyright to the content they provided You may not post their content as if it were your own regardless, which is what you did when you plopped it on Wikipedia without relevant attribution. We would additionally require confirmation regarding appropriate licensing from your clients via the process described at WP:DONATETEXT; you, as a freelancer, cannot provide the appropriate permissions.

I can also assure you that the articles were not direct, word-for-word copies I can assure you, they are, because I can see both your deleted copy and the prior attempts by the pair of socks of interest. You may have tweaked a word here or there, and even removed some promotional text, but they are substantial duplicates of the prior versions of those articles/drafts (to be clear, Draft:Chirag Shah and Brandon Rembert are the pair of pages deleted as G5 but which are duplicates), and so the versions deleted will remain deleted as such for one of the two prior reasons (you are a sock, or it is that it is someone else's writing). (Draft:Kendall Van Keuren-Jensen is the page deleted as G5 without prior obvious copy, but given this discussion I would guess you did not write it yourself either.... and perhaps none of your pages have been your own writing.)

Should you be unblocked, I would advise that you start from scratch using the references only and not the prior full pages.

I'm actually pretty willing to entertain that you are indeed neither of the prior socks who have attempted work on these pages, based on the declarations that those sockmasters usually lack, but you need to fix your approach to copyrighted text immediately. Izno (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I just reviewed my saved drafts. For Brandon Rembert, I’d estimate that approximately 40% of the content was different from any earlier versions, and for Chirag Shah, about 80% was different. I wasn’t aware that crediting prior editors was required, but if that’s the appropriate way to resolve this, I’m happy to make the necessary attributions. Alternatively, I’m also open to doing a full rewrite if that’s preferred.

Regarding the Keuren-Jensen article, the content was written entirely by me, with only minor suggestions from the client. In situations where a client contributes small edits, I’m unsure how attribution should work—especially since, as a paid editor, I generally view myself and the client as operating collaboratively, almost as a single entity.

I guess you cannot yourself unblock me, right? so I will wait for another admin to review my appeal. Hairmer (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Admins can always reverse their own blocks.

You will need to rewrite Chirag Shah and Brandon Rembert such that they are 100% your own writing. Attribution is sufficient if and only if the material you are taking is already licensed appropriately. In this case, it is clear and obvious that it was not.

In situations where a client contributes small edits, I’m unsure how attribution should work—especially since, as a paid editor, I generally view myself and the client as operating collaboratively, almost as a single entity. Per above: whatever is posted under your account must be your writing. Any other's writing must have an appropriate license provided per WP:DONATETEXT, and it must be clear and obvious which text is theirs and which is yours. I am certain that is a lot more effort than you want to go through. Izno (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and reconsideration. While a rewrite may take some effort, I’m more than willing to do it. My goal is ensuring all Wikipedia compliance first and then also keeping my clients happy. I believe ethical paid editors who adhere to all policies should be welcomed, as this is the best way to combat spam and undisclosed editing. I apologize for not being aware of the copyright policies involved, but I view this as a learning opportunity. I'm ready to take the necessary steps to resolve the copyright concerns and can provide a full rewrite of the content.

Since my access is currently blocked, please advise on how to proceed. Would it be acceptable for me to post the revised draft on my user page or talk page for your review?

Meanwhile, the page for Kendall Van Keuren-Jensen, was 100% written by myself, so there is no need to rewrite it. It was a pending AFC, I hope you can restore it to the date it was submitted, as I am aware there is a 3-month wait period to get reviewed. It was submitted several weeks ago, and I would hate to start over. Hairmer (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I have unblocked you and will restore the article about Kendall.

Are there any other articles you've written or contributed to with text that was not yours? Izno (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

No, everything else was written by myself. Hairmer (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: Thank you for restoring my access. Would you mind to restore Brandon Rembert and Chirag Shaw pages to the drafts? This way I can save some time from inserting citations and will just revise the content. When I am done, I will notify you so you can do a review. Hairmer (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I already stated that I will not restore those. Copyright violations are not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. I am happy to provide you the references if you would like those, but based on your comments above you already have access to your previous articles. Izno (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Izno, First, I am not trying to use the same content, I am just trying to save time from reinserting all citations again which is time-consuming, so you would just be placing it in the draft, and you can feel free to remove everything except the references.

Second, we also have the option to give attribution to the original editor, per Wikipedia policy, so I can also do that. So you decide please which is best. Hairmer (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

No, they are not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia. That includes draft space. Period and end of story. Your choices are:

1. Be provided the references.
2. Be provided nothing.

Izno (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Izno: In that case, could you restore only the references into the draft for both pages? I also do not want to lose the spot in AFC for Chirag Shah. Would you please restore it to the date it was submitted? Hairmer (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

AFC doesn't work like that. There is no discrete queue, because we are all volunteers; you have not 'lost your spot'.

I have restored the references into your user space at User:Hairmer/Brandon Rembert and User:Hairmer/Chirag Shah. You may move the pages to the draft space when you think they are ready to go through WP:AFC, and tag as appropriate at that time. Do not reinsert copyrighted text in the meantime. If you want to mold the text to something which is not a copyvio, you need to work entirely offline with it. Izno (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Jewelmer

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Jewelmer. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The link in question was a TV documentary about the company and was not inappropriate. However, my mistake was that the section header should have been labeled "External links" instead of "See also"— that was likely my oversight. It's also worth noting that the page was approved through the Articles for Creation (AFC) process while that link was present, meaning an admin had already reviewed and accepted it. If the inclusion of such links is considered problematic, perhaps admins should be advised to remove them before approving submissions. Hairmer (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hairmer, an article passing through the AFC process does not mean that every aspect of the article was actively judged as strictly policy compliant. While there is some flexibility, the core purpose of AFC is to identify articles that will likely survive a deletion discussion at AFD. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CoffeeCrumbs: Thank you for the clarification. Hairmer (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)