User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with The Discarded Image. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Natalie 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Ggggggggggggggg12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

You were blocked because of your username, not because of any article contributions you may have made. Please refer to our username policy. — Kurykh 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Could someone please explain what is going on? I follow the instructions for creating a new article, and have only got to two sentances and appear to be blocked. Please explain. Thanks

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature is the last book written by C. S. Lewis. On one level it is a work that deals with medieval cosmology and the Ptolemaic universe, the 'model' of the world used by the medievals.

You were apparently blocked because your username violated our username policy. Natalie 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sucks. I was astonished that you don't have an article on the Discarded Image. It is arguably Lewis's best work, and is very influential in its field. I was trying to write an article on it - since I only seem to be able to post to this page, can you paste it into the article?

I would suggest just making a different account (double check our username policy first and redoing the article. The original article was deleted because it was really short (see the criteria for speedy deletion, so I would also suggest that you don't save the page until you have a few sentences. If you can find some secondary sources about the book, that would be best. More information can be found at Wikipedia: your first article which covers the basics. Sorry for your abrupt introduction to our myriad rules. Natalie 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was really short because I appear to have been blocked after writing two sentences. I'm not really interested in playing games with usernames or jumping through hoops to write things. I thought this was a place to make a serious encyclopedia. Of course I can reference sources, but not in the first two sentences. I am a Lewis scholar, and felt that I could contribute, but it appears that the environment is pretty hostile.

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature is the last book written by C. S. Lewis. On one level it is a work that deals with medieval cosmology and the Ptolemaic universe, the 'model' of the world used by the medievals - "the medieval synthesis itself, the whole organization of their theology, science and history into a single, complex, harmonious mental model of the universe." The central themes of the book include the structure of the medieval universe, the nature of its inhabitants, the notion of a finite universe, ordered and maintained by a celestial hierarchy, and the ideas of nature. At the same time, Lewis takes his reader on an engaging tour of some of the pinnacles of medieval thought (some of them inherited from Classical Paganism) that have survived into the modern cultural and theological landscape.

Selected reviews: "Wise, illuminating, companionable, it may well come to be seen as Lewis’ s best book." The Observer "the final memorial to the work of a great scholar and teacher and a wise and noble mind."

References: THE MODEL UNIVERSE - BURROW Essays in Criticism.1965; XV: 207-211 http://www.necessaryprose.com/cslewis.htm The Alterity of Medieval Literature - J. A. Burrow - New Literary History, Vol. 10, No. 2, Medieval Literature and Contemporary Theory (Winter, 1979), pp. 385-390

Ggggggggggggggg12 → Irritated

Current name: Ggggggggggggggg12 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
Requested name: Irritated (rename user)
Reason: Petty rulemongering. Ggggggggggggggg12 04:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can venture an opinion on this site. I am not sure that anyone reads this, or if this is the correct place, so please, could someone post it elsewhere if it's more appropriate. I am what you might call a late adopter of the internet, an Associate Professor of Medieval Literature, and was referred to this site by a colleague who described it in glowing terms as a team of people trying to write an encyclopedia, albeit, one with a woeful lack of detail in my area of specialisation. Having found that one of my favourite, and, without a doubt one of the most influential books on this topic had no article, I tried to create it, as instructed, only to be sent to a page asking me to create a user name. I tried, and found my first two names were taken, so entered a string I thought would not be in use. Success, after a few false starts with the blurred text. At this point I start to write the article, but, no sooner have I tried to enter the third sentence, than it is deleted for being too short, and I am blocked because my user name is not good enough. My foray into the internet wikipedia is over, and I can't say that I am impressed. I am sure that there are terribly clever reasons for how hostile this site is to new users, but it does not encourage participation. I have left the beginning of my article on this page in case anyone is interested in writing such things - my experience suggests that they are not. Good day.

Your frustration is completely understandable - Wikipedia can be a nonsensical place at first glance. Rules are generally implemented after a lengthy period of abuse, but that isn't always apparent to the new user. If you change your mind and would like to contribute to Wikipedia, I for one welcome you. I wish more academics were involved in Wikipedia, as well as more infrequent Internet users. You should be able to merely create a new username at Special:Userlogin. Natalie 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed in how this was handled. It looks like we needlessly drove off a potentially valuable contributor. I recreated the page with this content The Discarded Image. Trollderella 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Dear Ggggggggggggggg12, please accept my sincere apologies on behalf of all reasonable Wikipedians. Wikipedia has a number of procedures and rules that have been set up for the purpose of making Wikipedia welcoming to new users. These procedures were not followed in your case.

Articles about books are never supposed to be "speedy-deleted"at least not under the notability criterion. 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC). At worst, they're supposed to go through a five-day process during which people can vote on whether they're notable enough to keep. This book by a highly notable author should probably not have even been subjected to being put through the five-day process.
Articles are never supposed to be speedy-deleted simply because they are too short. Articles which are very short, and which are also lacking in context, and which have not just been created in the past few minutes can be speedy-deleted. This article, even when only two sentences long, did not lack context -- it gave enough information to show exactly what book it was about. And it had only just been created. Article deletion is supposed to be based on whether the topic has a reasonable potential of being expanded into an appropriate article -- not on the current length of the article.
Although one might perhaps be able to argue that the username "Ggggggggggggggg12" is somehow disruptive, it is certainly not very disruptive, and instead of immediately blocking the account, someone could have posted a polite message asking you to change to a different username and giving you instructions how to do it, but with a reasonable timeframe so that your ability to edit would not be interrupted.
The policy WP:BITE is supposed to remind people to generally be friendly to new users, to be forgiving if a new user breaks any rules (which as far as I'm concerned you did not,) and to be gentle in applying rules against new users.

Because Wikipedia is (supposedly at least) designed to be extremely easy to join, unfortunately there are a lot of new accounts started for the purpose of posting malicious things, and some administrators have gotten into the habit of spending their time in the necessary task of blocking the malicious users (vandals). Unfortunately, and ironically, a result seems to be that they sometimes forget to treat good-faith users with due respect and civility. I hope you'll give Wikipedia another chance. It can really be very rewarding. If you do, here are some tips that might help you:

When starting a new page, you can put {{inuse}} on the page to indicate that you're in the middle of working on it. (This shouldn't be necessary; anyone should be able to realize that a short page that's just been created is probably being worked on; but just in case.)
You can create pages in your "userspace". For example, if your username is still Ggggggggggggggg12, you can create a page with a name like "User:Ggggggggggggggg12/Draft C.S. Lewis article". (It's important to include the slash in the name. The part after the slash can be pretty much whatever you want.) You can then work on a draft article there in relative peace, and if you choose, ask other Wikipedians to comment on or contribute to it, before moving it into the "mainspace" where it becomes part of the encyclopedia and is more visible.
You can use the "Show preview" button repeatedly when partly through writing an article, and you can if you wish choose to click "Save page" only when you've finished what you want to put in at that time. Again, this shouldn't be necessary, but can be done as a precaution against some of those trigger-happy new-page patrollers. The only problem is if you lose your internet connection during the process.

Note that when new pages are created, they're often looked at in the first few minutes by new-page patrollers, but if they manage to get through that unscathed, they're often left more-or-less in peace for days or weeks at least. Also, the new-page patrollers are supposed to, and often do, try to help improve articles rather than just deleting things. Again, please accept my apologies and I do hope you'll give Wikipedia another chance. Feel free to post a message on my talk page at any time, for example if you have any questions about how Wikipedia works. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't post a message on my talk page because you're still blocked, you can post a message here, and I'm likely, though not certain, to see it; I have this page on my watchlist. You can also post {{helpme}} here, along with a question or request and someone will come along to try to help you. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Dear Ggggggggggggggg12:

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. As an amateur scholar of Lewis (which is to say a medievalist who took a graduate survey on him), I can only add that I'm amazed that there wasn't already an article on this book. Sometimes the holes in the encyclopedia surprise me. Thanks to you and to User:Trollderella, who left a note above, this particular gap has been filled.

I am very sorry that your first foray into Wikipedia was so frustrating, and I hope that you will return to help us again (if you have not already done so under a different name). By this time it has been explained to you that your username is not consistent with policy, as it is difficult for editors to grasp (which is to say "count") a string of Gs. Blocks for usernames that fall afoul of this section of the username policy (as "Confusing usernames") are not meant to discourage further contribution. You should have found displayed a friendly notice of how to change your username. I'm sorry that, for whatever reason, you did not. Under ordinary circumstances, you could have changed your username (or registered for a new one) and resumed work with only a slight inconvenience. It was extremely unfortunate timing that your username was blocked while you were in the middle of crafting a new article which had been tagged for deletion by another user. If you had not been blocked, you might have been able to prevent this deletion or, failing that, to address its appropriateness with the deleting administrator at her talk page or through other channels. I particularly appreciate your taking the trouble to supply full text for the article on this talk page in spite of your frustration. That was a generous display of good will on your part. User:Coppertwig, who brought your situation to my attention, has taken steps at the history of the article to ensure that you are credited for the contribution.

I have approached the administrator who initially blocked your name. Apprised of your situation, he has unblocked you so that you may register for a new username that is consistent with policy in the event that you do decide to return. The name you had initially requested, Irritated, has since been taken by another user. (An understandable second choice, given your circumstances.) If you do wish to resume editing Wikipedia and do not wish to simply register a new account, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username to request another choice that is available. (You can verify that your choice is available by consulting the search function at Special:Listusers; if the name appears in the list, even if the link is red, the name is taken.)

Finally, I am also sorry that it has taken so long for your situation to be addressed. If you do return and wish to discuss any of this, you are certainly welcome to approach me at my talk page. General assistance with using Wikipedia is also available at the help desk. I note above that Coppertwig, too, has offered assistance. I hope that we have not permanently alienated you, and that you will give us another chance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]