Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.

Variations of English

Please read the WP:ENGVAR guideline before making any more spelling "corrections". Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

i apologize I'm a New York Bigot Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D./sandbox/Brett Coulter has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D./sandbox/Brett Coulter. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D./sandbox/Brett Coulter has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D./sandbox/Brett Coulter. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brett Coulter (July 1)

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 Robert McClenon was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

This draft reads like a resume, but Wikipedia is not for resumes. This draft does not establish biographical notability. Do not use Wikipedia to post your resume or advertise your qualifications. See also Wikipedia is not a web host.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission.

It should be noted that the reviewer has not decided that the topic is not notable. An article on the topic may be accepted in the future. However, there is no reason to think that this draft will become an article, and there is evidence that this draft will never become an article. If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over.

If this draft is resubmitted without discussion and without starting it over, or if an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection by starting over, a partial block or a topic-ban may be requested against the submitting editor.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Nicodemus Wilderness Project, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You created a punctuation error in a sentence that had been correct. Please be more careful. It is clear from your username alone that you aren't a "professor", or a punctuation expert. Please slow down and take any questions regarding whether any particular edit is correct to WP:TEAHOUSE. You've made some good proofreading changes but you've also broken things that didn't need fixing. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Brett Coulter

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:Brett Coulter, 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (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).

Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Good day wiki admins, I would like to share my amazement in your sites article verification process I am truly impressed as you tend to her a significant amount of "Wikipedia isn't accurate" slander in certain fields of study. I am requesting to be unblocked with the intention of completely revamping the original article a student of mine sent me... I have spoken to an old coworker who edits for Wikipedia professionally and they informed me that I should try and conform to wiki guidelines, not refbomb, sound encylopedic, etc. I am not an editor there is no time limit, I would simply like to honor the research I recieved (that was admitably worded biased). Please share your thoughts, I Intend on letting the community review my article progress in the draft/ talk space and I would truly appreciate this account being unbanned :) Happy Fourth of July ! Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2022 (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.

It would be of interest to know the user name of the "old coworker who edits for Wikipedia professionally". Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)