Gcwcd

AfC notification: Draft:John Paul has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Paul. Thanks! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Paul (March 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheLonelyPather was:  The comment the reviewer left 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:John Paul 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.

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Gcwcd! 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! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:John Paul (scientist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Paul (scientist). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Paul (scientist) (April 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit 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:John Paul (scientist) 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.

Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 07:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:John Paul (scientist)

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:John Paul (scientist), 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 deleting administrator. Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 - are you able to email me a copy of the coded up article before it was deleted? Gcwcd (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Gowcd, you copied at least one part of that article from the obituary published in the Independent--that alone is reason enough to delete it. In addition, the tone was just really promotional, and that is not a thing you can do. You asked about uploading documents--no, our articles need to be based on secondary sources. If you had paraphrased from the obituary and cited that, that would have been better already. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The person that this article was about is long deceased. On the Beatson Institute for Cancer Research website (now CRUK) there are Wikipedia articles for all the other directors. This was the founding director of this Institute so the lack of a Wikipedia site represents a gap. Thinking that it was still just going through revisions, I had hoped that someone would point out if the article appeared overly promotional. However, everything was based on facts. There was a genuine attempt to stick to facts and not overdo it. Presumably if the facts are true and not exaggerated then it can't be classified as overly promotional? If a way can be found for the article to be rebuilt then I will be happy to take feedback on how facts can be stated without sounding overly promotional. Gcwcd (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I restored part of it--a part that looked like it wasn't copied. Please be careful: no copyright violations, no promotional, non-neutral language. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Why the block Bbb23? Gcwcd (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

i.e. what did you consider advertising and promotion about what was being said? Gcwcd (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm a beginner here. The original article was about a scientist long deceased at the end of last century and no-one can gain in any way from it by advertising or promotion. I've asked for help from the Wikipedia community because it was speedy deleted. I have now been blocked from talking and am totally baffled about what is happening here. I can't get an answer which makes sense of any of these actions to me so that they can be resolved. The user who deleted my article and who blocked me from discussion are the same person. The Wiki administrators guide states not to block without messaging the author about it first. There was no warning. Gcwcd (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no policy that requires a warning; admins can act to protect disruption without warning if necessary- and as copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, Bbb23 was well within their ability to act. It is possible to promote something or someone without gaining something from it; we see it every day. This request does not address the concerns. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was working on the draft when you tagged it for speedy deletion, why would you do that? Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Gcwcd did not tag it for speedy deletion. I tagged it as G11, and Gcwcd blanked the page, which is technically incorrect (to remove the tag), but I then deleted it per G7.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Lots of beginner mistakes here. Not sure how to navigate this minefield. I thought the article had been completely restarted as a draft so didn't think that deleting it was an issue. Can you let me know why you've blocked me from discussion? Gcwcd (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Theroadislong, I thought it was finished and decided to take it out because it was missing citations and I thought people might start to pick up on that. I'll put it back if I can. Must admit to being totally lost about all this. And big thanks for helping.

• Gcwcd, do not refactor a declined unblock request. You may comment, or you make another unblock request, but you can't change the one that an administrator declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gcwcd: looks like you might have received the wrong block template. Your block, according to the block log, was for copyright infringement, something you've discussed and corrected but not addressed in your request for unblocking. Elemimele (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)