User talk:E-Stylus#top

File:TWA guide left bottom.png

:::::Hi E-Stylus! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

::::::* The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page

::::::* The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge

::::::* The Teahouse new editor help space

::::::* Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:28, Monday, January 8, 2018 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:TWA/Navigation2}}

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Beaux-Arts_de_Dijon check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Beaux-Arts_de_Dijon?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

File:Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading :File:Hily Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading :File:Hily Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Draft:Hily (app), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Draft%3AHily+%28app%29|deleting administrator}}. Whispering^(t) 02:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading :File:The Art of Elysium Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, E-Stylus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Brooklinen".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Brooklinen|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 03:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Amir Marashi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Amir+Marashi|deleting administrator}}. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Marashi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Seasons greetings Stylus. Please note that per WP:PAID and the WMF Terms of Use, editors editing for compensation are required to maintain links to any websites on which they advertise Wikipedia editing services on their userpage. Please ensure that you add these links as soon is convenient. Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

:Seasons greetings {{U|SamHolt6}}. I don't advertise Wikipedia editing services on any websites. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable when applying to job postings. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

::Make sure that you don't drift from WP:COI to WP:SPA, I'm quite willing to help some "women in red" towards "in blue", but less enthusiastic to help you with your salary.{{=P}} –84.46.52.63 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

:::Grateful for the advice. More than willing to put in the time and effort to contribute encyclopedic content both paid and unpaid. Any direction you can offer would be appreciated. E-Stylus (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

(copied from Talk"The Art of Elysium):

:You are a paid editor. I am not. If you are going to justify being paid to write articles, you should be writing excelelnt quality articles. I'll give an declared paid editor my help at first, because I do not like to turn anyone away, but by now you should have learned. You cannot pay me for the assistance i give, but I'm giving my free assistance so you can earn money, and you canot expect me to want to continue that sort of a situation. DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello E-Stylus, can you disclose links to all off-wiki accounts you are using to obtain business to fully comply with the WP:PAID policy? Please do so before making any further edit. Thank you. GSS ^💬 10:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

:Hello {{U|GSS}} - Per this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=932763440&oldid=932756102 diff], I don't advertise Wikipedia editing services on any websites. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable when applying to job postings. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

::That doesn't matter if your Upwork profile is private you still need to disclose per policies. GSS ^💬 10:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

::: WP:PAID states in part, "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week." E-Stylus (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

::::{{Oldid|Draft talk:Landed (company)|907887030|Per}} this you were hired through Upwork which means you use your Upwork account for paid Wikipedia services so you need to disclose if not you'll be reported for violating the policies. {{ping|Yunshui}} any thoughts? GSS ^💬 11:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::and more [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?cirrusUserTesting=control&sort=relevance&search=%22E-Stylus+%28talk+%C2%B7+contribs%29+has+been+paid%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns1=1&ns119=1&searchToken=ep70v5594nenncp3evxcrcpcb here]. GSS ^💬 11:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Just letting you know that you need to disclose this link as requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

:Hello {{U|Doc James}} - The written policies for WP:PAID and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts external advertising accounts] require disclosure of active accounts at websites where editors advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. My Upwork profile is not an advertisement for paid Wikipedia-editing services as it is set to private and is only viewable when applying to job postings, similar to a resume with personally identifiable information. Per the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4], my paid contributions are disclosed on my user page and on associated talk pages. An additional disclosure of a private Upwork profile is not required by present policy as it is not an advertisement. E-Stylus (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

:: I'm afraid you're mistaken. You are required by Wikipedia policy to provide links from your user page to your profile on any external website that you use to gain paid editing work. This is prevent the possibility of personation, and may not be circumvented. If you wish to edit Wikipedia, you will have to provide the relevant links. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

::: Hello {{U|RexxS}} - Where is the written Wikipedia policy that explicitly states, "You are required by Wikipedia policy to provide links from your user page to your profile on any external website that you use to gain paid editing work"? Your issuance of a block for "failure to provide links" based on an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GSS&diff=952715820&oldid=952618432 off-wiki email] from GSS, rather than the actual WP:PAID policy was punitive. Per the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts external advertising accounts] policy, "On-wiki accusations of 'failing to provide a link' without evidence is considered harassment and is potentially sanctionable." I have not violated WP:PAID or the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use as I do not advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services on any websites and my paid contributions are disclosed on my user page and on associated talk pages. If I was allowed at least 24 hours to respond to Doc James' statement above, this concern could have been addressed without an unwarranted block. If a formal appeal is the only option to request an unblock, please advise. E-Stylus (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

:::: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure #How to disclose states: {{talkquote|1=Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.}} You have not provided the required links, you have violated WP:PAID, and you're blocked until you comply.

:::: As for your personal attack on me: my block of your account was preventative, not punitive and you need to strike that calumny.

:::: You clearly do advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services on Upworks as evidenced by:

::::* Talk:Vecna (disambiguation)

::::* Talk:Hily

::::* Talk:The Art of Elysium

::::* Talk:Kate Simon (photographer)

::::* Draft talk:Landed (company)

::::* Draft talk:Stefania Skrabak

:::: All of those contain the text "E-Stylus has been paid by ... Hired through Upwork", which was added by you. There is the evidence needed, so you will not be able to rely on pleading harassment.

:::: We have an agreement with Upwork that they will close down Upwork accounts where someone falsely claims to own a Wikipedia user account: The requirement to link from your user page to the Upwork profile that you use to gain work is required to allow scrutiny of the relationship between the Wikipedia account and the Upwork account. It's not optional, and you will not be allowed to circumvent it.

:::: You were asked to provide the links on 26 December 2019 at User talk:E-Stylus #Full Compliance with WP:PAID and on 22 April 2020 User talk:E-Stylus #Paid editing disclosures. The community has been patient enough with your stalling, and I'm not inclined to give you even more time. The block was fully warranted and nobody on this site is going to be sympathetic to any wikilawyering about the meaning of "advertising".

:::: Now, you have three options:

::::# Comply with WP:PAID and provide the link to your Upwork profile to allow scrutiny, and I'll unblock you;

::::# Read WP:GAB and make an unblock request in the hope that you can convince another admin to reverse my block in the face of the above evidence;

::::# Stop editing Wikipedia completely (because the block applies to the person not the username).

:::: It's your choice. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

::::: Thank you for your response {{U|RexxS}}. There is no evidence that I have "active accounts at websites where [I] advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services." Submitting an application to a job posting via a private Upwork profile is not an advertisement which by definition requires a public medium to promote a service. In addition, there is no evidence that I am actively using my private Upwork profile to apply to new Wikipedia job postings.

::::: In the RfC titled [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation "Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation"], Doc James commented on the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts external advertising account] policy by stating in part, "What it IS saying is that if you are advertising editing services for pay you must link to that advertisement. This does not mean you need to link to any discussion you have of your WP work." This statement appears to make a distinction between advertising paid-editing and discussing Wikipedia work via a private internet medium. As the closer of this RfC, you are aware of the privacy concerns expressed due to the solicitation of personally identifiable information not protected by the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. I understand the community's concerns regarding impersonation, however there is no evidence that I have falsely claimed to own a Wikipedia user account or misrepresented my account standing in any way. I have complied with the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use], the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policies Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies], and WP:PAID. In turn, I am forced to appeal. E-Stylus (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::: You have an account on Wikipedia and you have an account with Upwork, by your own admission as the evidence I've presented shows. You can wikilawyer all you want about your understanding of "advertisement", but I've made it clear that the English Wikipedia community expects paid editors to be transparent in the connection between their Wikipedia account and their Upwork and similar accounts and the reasons for that.

:::::: As you've raised the issue, I'll quote from the close of meta:Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation:

::::::* "The issue that the proposal seeks to address is that of paid editors falsely claiming to be particular established Wikipedians, Wikipedians in good standing, or Wikipedians with certain rights and abilities."

::::::* "The proposal is therefore to require paid editors to provide a link on their Wikipedia user page to any accounts that they operate on external sites like Fiverr and Upwork."

::::::* "Nobody argued that there was no problem with paid editors making false claims on external sites. Evidence of the problem was presented and I find consensus that the issue should be dealt with if possible."

::::::* "I recommend that there be supplementary guidelines produced to ... make clear to paid editors that Wikimedia's commitment to support pseudonymous editing does not extend to disclosures made on external sites that we require paid editors to link to."

:::::: As the closer of that RfC, I found that consensus rejected any expectation that paid editors might have to pseudonymity beyond their Wikipedia accounts.

:::::: If you understand the community's concern regarding impersonation, then you understand that you have a duty to comply with the requirement to link your accounts. If one paid editor is allowed to opt-out on their own say-so, then all paid editors are similarly allowed to opt-out, and that would defeat the measures in place to counter personation. The community won't support that position as the RfC made clear.

:::::: Your assertion that you have complied with WP:PAID is false. You have been legitimately blocked to uphold our policy. Naturally you may choose to appeal against the block. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

::::::: {{U|RexxS}} - While your closing statement of issue does reference the operation of an Upwork account, the initial proposal by Doc James stated, "We require those involved with paid editing on Wikipedia to link on their user page to all other active accounts through which they advertise paid Wikipedia editing business." The resulting official WP:PAID policy explicitly states, "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week." Based on the policy's wording, I have complied with WP:PAID and will pursue an appeal. Thank you for your feedback. E-Stylus (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For avoidance of doubt, I have blocked you specifically for "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services, per WP:PAID #How to disclose." and that reason has been recorded in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:E-Stylus the block log]. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

:I'm a bit confused by this. If the account is private, they simply cannot link to it - you can't link to a private page that no-one can see. If they don't have a public profile, how can they be blocked for not linking to it? Does this user have a public profile that isn't being admitted to? - Bilby (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:: {{re|Bilby}} Nobody here knows what accounts this user has on Upwork. But two things are clear: they have done paid editing on Wikipedia that they have gained from Upwork; and they have failed to link to any account on Upwork from their user page. That breaches our policy that they must link their accounts so that we can combat personation. The community's view is clear that all paid editors have to abide by these conditions and if they choose to arrange their business in such a way that it frustrates those requirements, they will not be allowed to edit here. Is there any of that confusing to you? --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::Yes. What confuses me is that they have stated their profile on Upwork is not public, so there is nothing to link to. If they don't have a public profile to link to, I'm not sure how they can meet the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::: I stated above {{tq|"if they choose to arrange their business in such a way that it frustrates those requirements, they will not be allowed to edit here."}} That's their choice. If each paid editor is allowed to circumvent the requirement to link to their account, then the personation will go unchecked. The community has made clear that that is not an acceptable situation. --RexxS (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::There are much easier ways to circumvent the policy - just do what the majority of the Upwork paid editors do. I'm just curious as to how to move forward. If E-Stylus was to link to their private profile, would that meet the requirements? - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::: If E-Stylus can demonstrate that they have linked to all of their Upwork accounts that they used to gain the business involved in their paid Wikipedia editing, that would meet our requirements to avoid personation. --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::Ok. So they need to provide a link any private accounts that they may hold. Fair enough. That would be sufficient to fully meet the policy, I assume? - Bilby (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: I said {{tq|"If E-Stylus can demonstrate that they have linked to all of their Upwork accounts that they used to gain the business involved in their paid Wikipedia editing, that would meet our requirements to avoid personation."}} They need to be showing that are supporting the policy, not attempting to circumvent it as they have been doing so far. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::Cool. How do they do that? - Bilby (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::: Ask them. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: I'm thinking that this may be an impossible expectation to meet, which isn't really a way forward. - Bilby (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::: My job as an admin is to uphold the policies that the community has agreed. I don't have a remit to dig editors out of holes that they have dug themselves into. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm ok with that, I'm just not seeing the policy the same way you are. At any rate, we'll try the linking to the profile path, and see if there is any chance of making progress there. - Bilby (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Let's hope so. I'd rather see a paid editor editing productively in line with community requirements than blocked. But I'm afraid that I'd rather see a paid editor blocked than subverting the community's expectations. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

E-Stylus, would you be willing to set your profile to Upwork-users only and provide a link to it? I'm not seeing a viable alternative under the circumstances, and while I agree that you are not currently "advertising" if it is private, that isn't going to be enough to get unblocked. - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

: Hi {{U|Bilby}} - Thank you for attempting to clarify this situation. I have one Upwork account and my profile is set to private. My concern is the disclosure of personally identifiable information that is not protected by the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. When Upwork users access the direct link for a private profile, they can view the freelancer's first name, last initial, job title, photo, city, and country. In the interest of protecting my privacy, I will continue reviewing the appeals process and follow up. E-Stylus (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

::I'm aware of this situation. Unfortunately, when this was raised during the formation of this policy, the decision was that revealing this information would be the cost of engaging in paid editing. Ultimately, I do not expect that you can be unblocked without providing that link. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=The block template message for undisclosed paid editing is unwarranted because my paid contributions were previously disclosed on my user page and on associated talk pages in accordance with WP:PAID and the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4]. The additional block reasoning of "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services, per WP:PAID #How to disclose" is unwarranted because I have never advertised paid Wikipedia-editing on any websites nor is there any evidence to the contrary. Per my paid contribution disclosures, I have previously contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork, however my account profile is set to private which means it does not display in Upwork's freelancer marketplace or in Google search results. It is only viewable when applying to a job posting. Submitting a proposal to a job posting via a private internet medium does not constitute an advertisement which by definition requires a public medium to promote a product or service.

WP:PAID states in part, "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week." In turn, my Wikipedia account is in compliance with WP:PAID as I do not advertise paid Wikipedia-editing on any websites. My operation of an Upwork account is not exclusive to Wikipedia work. I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Art_of_Elysium 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kate_Simon_(photographer) 2]).  

On 12/28/2019, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=932763440&oldid=932756102 responded] to an [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts external advertising account] inquiry from SamHolt6. After I communicated that my Upwork profile was set to private, there was no response from SamHolt6. On 4/22/2020, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952461474&oldid=952459495 responded] to an external advertising account inquiry from GSS. After I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952464713&oldid=952462961 cited] the relevant WP:PAID policy, GSS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952465526&oldid=952464713 contacted] administrator Yunshui for "any thoughts". There was no response from Yunshui. On 4/23/2020, administrator Doc James, the initial proposer of the external advertising account policy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952604192&oldid=952478820 advised] that I "need[ed] to disclose the link as requested", however the official WP:PAID policy was not addressed. Less than 24 hours later, my account was blocked by administrator RexxS, the closer for the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation external advertising account RfC]. RexxS received a related [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GSS&diff=952715820&oldid=952618432 email] from GSS that appears to constitute off-wiki block shopping as there was no report to an on-wiki noticeboard for peer review.  

On 4/24/2020, administrator Yunshui [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=952819899&oldid=947745109 proposed] amending the wording of the external advertising account policy. If this cross-project policy is not sufficiently clear, my account should not have been blocked prior to a community discussion on potential policy revisions. In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 states in part, "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." As of 4/23/2020, the date of my account's block, the external advertising account policy was not listed on the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policies alternative disclosure policies page].

While I understand the community's concerns regarding impersonation on external websites, I have never falsely claimed to own a Wikipedia user account or misrepresented my account standing. A policy that allows administrators to block editors without reviewable evidence leaves considerable room for misuse and abuse of power, specifically if the only current resolution is the disclosure of personally identifiable information. In the RfC for the external advertising account policy, Doc James, the initial proposer stated, "The proposal is not to have accounts here on Wikipedia blocked or banned. The proposal is only to help with removing dishonest advertisements that exist elsewhere." If this is the purpose, there is a potential alternative that would satisfy the community's aim and protect the privacy of compliant paid editors. If an Upwork freelancer disclosed an Upwork assigned contract ID for a completed or existing Wikipedia job, Upwork could review their site's corresponding account profile and confirm with Wikipedia that the editor has not violated either website's Terms of Use. I would be willing to provide a contract ID provided Upwork does not disclose my personally identifiable information and I am copied on all related correspondence between Upwork and Wikipedia. E-Stylus (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)|decline=See below (chronological order) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)}}

:Note to reviewing admin: I contacted RexxS for a different purpose and blocking this user was his own decision which is absolutely right imo. We have not seen the Upwork profile connected to this user so, we can't just believe what he's claiming is true. What we have with us is evidence that he uses that profile to obtain paid-Wikipedia services. GSS ^💬 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

:Tough. Hi {{u|E-Stylus}}, I think it all boils down to the following question: Now that the policy has been explicitly changed to what seems to have been the community's intention all the time, do you agree to adhere to it by providing the requested link on your user page as soon as you are unblocked? Do you agree to do so without obscuring it, e.g. by not putting it inside a "collapse" box? If so, please also provide the link below, in response to this question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|ToBeFree}} - Thank you for your review. The [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts external advertising account] policy is a cross-project policy. In turn, can the policy be expanded outside the scope of advertising without a discussion that meets the requirements for broad [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment community approval]? The proposed policy amendment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=953462944&oldid=953261103 received] 3 votes and 1 comment. On 4/30/2020, the day after my appeal, the discussion was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=954019378&oldid=953462944 closed] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=954019132&oldid=947504020 implemented] by administrator Yunshui, the initial proposer of the amendment.

::The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 states in part, "An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policies alternative disclosure policy page."] As neither the original or revised version of the external advertising account policy is currently listed on the alternative disclosure policy page, how is it justifiable for my Wikipedia account to be blocked? In good faith, I am willing to provide an Upwork assigned contract ID for a completed Wikipedia job if Upwork does not disclose my personally identifiable information and I am copied on all related correspondence between Upwork and Wikipedia. The contract ID will enable Upwork to review my corresponding account profile and confirm with Wikipedia that I have not violated either website's Terms of Use. E-Stylus (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::Hi {{u|E-Stylus}}, thanks for the explanation.

:::Please note that Wikilawyering may not be the best way to approach the situation, and is often seen as a way of "gaming the system" on Wikipedia. However, even if we take the policy and TOU by the word:

:::*Local policies like WP:PAID, and local guidelines like WP:COI, do not need to "supersede" the Terms of Use. You need to adhere to both the TOU and the community's policies; the simple reason is that the community's elected administrators (WP:BLOCK), or even the community itself (WP:CBAN) can show you the door if you don't adhere to its norms. The existence of the Terms of Service, and your obligation to adhere to them, does not affect your obligation to adhere to WP:PAID. Communities like Wikimedia Commons have chosen to opt out of the "Paid contributions without disclosure" part of the TOU, and the ability for them to do so is the "supersession" described there. Taking it as a reason to ignore WP:PAID is a misinterpretation.

:::*Global community policies that introduce a requirement on all wikis should be interpreted as a lower limit, not an upper limit to local policy requirements. If a community decides to increase the requirements locally, this does not conflict with a global policy that was only meant to introduce an requirement, not to reduce the amount of requirements.

:::*Please have a look at section 10, "Management of Websites", of the Terms of Use: "The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition."

:::*The blocking policy, section "Unblock requests", offers the following guidance: "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended." As you refuse to provide the requested link, we can not come to an agreement here, so that seems to be your only option. Please note that, per the banning policy, section "Community bans and restrictions", "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'."

:::If you would like to appeal to the community, please create a new unblock appeal that begins with the text "Please copy this request to WP:AN on my behalf". You are allowed to copy your old request, but I do not recommend doing so, since you won't be arguing with lawyers but with a community of volunteer encyclopedia editors.

:::Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::: Hi {{u|ToBeFree}} - As of 4/29/2020, the date of my block appeal, my Wikipedia account was in compliance with the community's WP:PAID policy. On 4/30/2020, the policy was amended and retroactively applied. The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 states in part, {{talkquote|1= "These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page."}} My understanding of this wording is that if a Project community implements a paid contribution policy that requires more detailed disclosure than the TOU requirements, the policy must be listed on the alternative disclosure policies page to supersede the TOU. I am not attempting to game the system, but rather asking for fair and objective consideration relative to the TOU and community policies. E-Stylus (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::{{u|E-Stylus}}, thank you very much for highlighting the discussed part. I can understand the disagreement, but I'll insist that "superseding" the Terms of Use is not necessary at all for WP:PAID to be enforceable. Yes, the TOU say that "community (...) policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This just confirms our point. However, because WP:PAID is not listed as an "alternative" policy, you do not have a choice between them. You have to adhere to both. The section requiring you to do so is section 10, not section 4. The quoted part of section 4 just confirms that it does not contradict section 10. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::: {{re|ToBeFree}} My take on the issue is this:

:::::: Many paid editors (PEs) operate an account on Upwork. That contains a "profile" which is used to advertise them to prospective employers. It is expected that prospective employers see that profile before deciding to employ the PE.

:::::: E-Stylus operate an account on Upwork. That contains a "profile". E-Stylus has chosen to use software settings to hide that profile, although prospective employers are allowed to see it. E-Stylus contends that is not advertising, but my counter-argument is this:

:::::: If I were to create a website that only certain people were allowed to read, on my invitation, and I placed an advertisement on the website, would it be any less of an advertisement? Of course not.

:::::: In a non-tech example, if I were to place an advertisement inside the entrance hall to my house, it could only be seen by those that I chose to invite into my house. Would it then not be an advertisement? Of course not.

:::::: So it is for E-Stylus' profile. That would be the advert to which they are required to link if it were visible. Choosing to use software to hide that advert from all except those they choose does not stop it being the advert that they are required to link. Their decision to make use of the "private setting" deliberately subverts our agreed policy as agreed by the cross-project RfC at meta:Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation.

:::::: If every PE were allowed to opt-out of the requirement to link on their own say-so, then the agreed policy would be completely frustrated. That was never the intent of the community, as shown in the RfC, and I am determined to uphold our policy in order to eliminate impersonation. Thank you for your support. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|ToBeFree}} - Thank you for your response. If the 4/30/2020 version of WP:PAID is a strengthening of the TOU's paid disclosure requirements, would this not constitute an alternative to the TOU requirements? The alternative paid contribution disclosure polices page states, {{talkquote|1= "Disclosure of paid contributions to any of the Wikimedia projects is a requirement under the disclosure provision of the Terms of use. Nonetheless, individual projects may create an alternative disclosure policy when their projects or communities have particular needs to either strengthen or reduce the requirements. The provision gives communities discretion to adjust the rules for their specific community after following the project's standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies. Adopting an alternative disclosure policy requires consensus, consistent with the project’s past practice and local understanding of what consensus is. After creating such a policy, projects must include their policy here. This list will help editors and sister projects to quickly discover what the local project policy for paid editing is, or if the default applies."}} My understanding of this wording is that the expansion of WP:PAID beyond the scope of external advertising accounts would require community consensus that meets the standard of participation for changes to policies.

::::::: Hi {{u|RexxS}} - My Upwork account profile is not set to private to "deliberately subvert" Wikipedia's external advertising account policy. My profile was private before I contracted a Wikipedia job. I have privacy concerns regarding the disclosure of my personally identifiable information on Upwork and Wikipedia. This is why I suggested the use of an Upwork assigned contract ID to confirm my account compliance. We can agree to disagree on the definition of advertising. E-Stylus (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

::::::::The appeal has been declined; if you would like to challenge this decision, please create an appeal for WP:AN. Please do not use this talk page to endlessly repeat the same arguments over and over again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=Please copy this request to WP:AN on my behalf.

Hi - I am seeking your input regarding my unblock request. My account was blocked for "Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services". Per my paid contribution disclosures, I have previously contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork, however I have never advertised paid Wikipedia-editing services nor is there any evidence to the contrary. My Upwork profile is set to private and is only viewable by prospective clients when submitting a proposal to a job posting. I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Art_of_Elysium 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kate_Simon_(photographer) 2]) and I have never misrepresented my Wikipedia account.

After my account's block, the WP:PAID policy was expanded to require link disclosure for external accounts outside the scope of [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts advertising]. The amended policy was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=954019132&oldid=947504020 implemented] by the proposer with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=954019378&oldid=953462944 3 votes and 1 comment]. It was then retroactively unfairly applied to support the blockage of my account. As the amended policy now requires disclosure of personally identifiable information that is not already public, I am asking that the community review this policy change with a standard of participation that meets the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Also, I am asking that the resulting PAID policy be added to the Wikimedia Foundation's [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policies alternative disclosure page] with the other local community policies that "strengthen or reduce" the paid disclosure requirements of the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities Terms of Use]. While these procedures may not remedy the questionable blocking of my account, they would at least offer wider consideration and documentation in line with community policies and the Terms of Use. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)|decline=Your appeal is denied by the community. See AN discussion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)}}

I have copied it over. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{u|331dot}} - Thank you for copying the request. I have made every effort to contribute compliant disclosed paid edits. In addition, approximately 50% of my edits are volunteer contributions. I am just opposed to disclosing my non-public personally identifiable information, especially when it is not protected by the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. E-Stylus (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

::You're entirely free to choose not to disclose personally identifiable information regarding the Upwork account through which you conduct your paid editing activity. But, as the developing consensus appears to be confirming, that means you are not compliant with policy and you will not be allowed to engage in paid editing here. So it's either make the full disclosures required by Wikipedia policy, or don't do any paid editing. That choice is entirely yours, but Wikipedia has no obligation to facilitate paid editing on terms favourable to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

{{u|Bilby}} - Thank you for considering both sides. E-Stylus (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{u|Bilby}} - Just inquiring as to any steps forward to resume contributing to Wikipedia. I no longer contract work via Upwork, and all my paid contributions were disclosed prior to the blocking of my account ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952709400&oldid=952604192 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952711820&oldid=952709400 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952945205&oldid=952944675 3]). E-Stylus (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|Bilby}} - Would you be willing to offer any advice on seeking reinstatement of my account? I have read WP:UNBAN, but any insight based on past experience would be appreciated. E-Stylus (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, E-Stylus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stefania Skrabak".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, E-Stylus. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Landed (company), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. {{#if:||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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, E-Stylus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Janette Nesheiwat, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed |1=Would a Wikipedia editor be willing to copy the below appeal to the appropriate discussion board?

On April 23, 2020, my Wikipedia account was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=952711820&oldid=952709400 indefinitely blocked] for “Failure to provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services, per WP:PAID #How to disclose.” Per my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:E-Stylus preexisting paid contribution disclosures], I contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork between October 2018 and September 2019. However, due to privacy concerns, my Upwork profile - including nonpublic personal information such as my name, photograph, gender, racial origin, and geographic location - was set to private since the opening of the associated account, and it was only visible to potential clients when applying for a job. After submitting an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E-Stylus&diff=953949223&oldid=953342415 unblock request] on my Wikipedia talk page on April 29, 2020, the WP:PAID #How to disclose policy was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=954019378&oldid=953462944 amended] - beyond the scope of advertising paid Wikipedia-editing services - on April 30, 2020.

As I am no longer utilizing the Upwork platform to contract work (Wikipedia-related or non-Wikipedia), I am seeking reconsideration of my account’s blocking and subsequent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:E-Stylus&diff=956686038&oldid=954054644 site ban]. The ban was imposed on May 14, 2020 after an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=956657409#Appeal_of_E-Stylus AN discussion] among 11 Wikipedia editors. If allowed to rejoin the Wikipedia community, I will continue making every effort to contribute compliant edits that effectively inform readers. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |decline = Declined because of WP:SNOWBALL. This is essentially the same request that was previously discussed and declined. If instead you were planning on not engaging in any further paid editing, that would be a different situation and may be worth bringing to the community for discussion. Yamla (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)}}

::{{re|Yamla}} Thank you for your response. I understand that the WP:PAID policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=954019378&oldid=953462944#Proposed_change_to_wording amendment] now applies. Per WP:UNBAN, I am asking that the community reconsider my account's site ban because I no longer utilize the Upwork platform to contract work (Wikipedia-related or non-Wikipedia). I have not contracted Wikipedia work via Upwork since September 2019 (22 months), and all my paid contributions were disclosed prior to my account's blocking in April 2020. If reinstated, I will continue to comply with Wikipedia's TOS and community policies. E-Stylus (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

:::That's not the same as saying you'll avoid any further paid editing. And frankly, the community consensus appears to be that the WP:PAID policy didn't change but was simply clarified. I'm aware you hold a different position, and I may be mistaken that this is the general position of the community. I consider this the end of our discussion, though of course you are welcome to attempt to convince another admin to take your request (or a modified version of your request) to the noticeboard. I'm just a single voice here. --Yamla (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

::::{{u|Primefac}}: Would you be willing to offer any advice on the above? E-Stylus (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

{{u|Isaacl}} and {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}: Just a FYI that the current wording of the WP:PAID policy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Disclosing_external_accounts_on_Wikipedia Disclosing external accounts on Wikipedia], does not reflect the associated Meta cross-project policy regarding [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts linking to external advertising accounts]. The English Wikipedia policy was amended from the Meta policy based on a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure&diff=954019378&oldid=953462944#Proposed_change_to_wording discussion] among 5 editors. E-Stylus (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

:Thank you for the link. I think the purpose of the discussion was to clarify how English Wikipedia interprets the policy. It having a banner saying "This section describes a requirement to disclose external accounts that was passed on Meta-Wiki and applies to all Wikipedia language versions." seems accurate to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

::{{re|ProcrastinatingReader}} Thank you for your response. In your opinion, does a discussion among 5 editors meet the WP:CONLEVEL standard of participation to constitute the Meta-Wiki policy interpretation of the English Wikipedia community as a whole? E-Stylus (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading :File:Vecna Robotics Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)