User talk:JohnK3142

Requested move of Draft:BabylonJS

Please see my comment at WP:RMTR: here. The move should be requested again if a decision is made to create an article in main space. The move has opposition, and the script is not letting me open a move discussion for a draft. Consider working to resolve the objections. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

{{tl:Sockpuppet|Hololite}} – Athaenara ✉ 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per portions of this user's explanation in the unblock request below, I de-activated the sockpuppet template. – Athaenara ✉ 07:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

JohnK3142 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

- Update

Now that my sockpuppet label has been removed I do not believe the accusation of 'advertising' is sufficient reason to be blocked from editing. I am not able to find 'advertising' as a reason for blocking. Though I do not believe my contributions indicate advertising I do accept it is one reason given when deleting a submission based on the content of the article. In fact re-writing so that "Any new version will need to provide independent evidence of notability" was advised by administrator RHaworth after a submission by a previous user was deleted. In trying to do this I may or may not have succeeded and as it has been judged as advertising can only make it non-advertising by taking advice about its content and improve it. This is not possible while blocked.

- End Update

It is difficult to give precise reasons since I do not fully understand what I have done incorrectly. Since – Athaenara ✉ does not receive messages and I cannot edit Athaenara's talk page I can only appeal by making assumptions and describing my actions and the reasons for them. In addition as far as I can tell there are no reasons given for the deletion of the page.

There appears to be two issues

1. contributing and editing only for the purposes of advertising

2. being a sockpuppet of Hololite

a: advertising

Babylon.js has made and is making important contributions to the development of 3D graphics on the web along with OpenGl,WebGl and Three.js and so warrants an entry alongside these other open source products. Having an entry for Babylon.js is no more an advert than pages for OpenGl, webGl and Three.js are adverts. My intention was and is to produce an entry for Wikipedia for Babylon.js that is encyclopedic in nature. Please note that I am referring to the page as Babylon.js and not as BabylonJS, this becomes an important part of my appeal at a later stage. The reason for wanting the title to be Babylon.js is that this is how it is entitled on its home page and it mirrors the title of the French and Russian Wikipedia babylon.js pages.

b: Contributing and Editing

When I started this back in September I had never edited a Wikipedia page before and had much to learn and if during this process I have made any mistakes it is because of my naivety and not intentional and I apologize for them. I knew that an earlier draft had been turned down and I wanted to find out why and how it could be changed to be acceptable. After research I found out that administrator RHaworth had deleted that page and I requested a copy so I could see what needed changing. He also told me that "Any new version will need to provide independent evidence of notability". Soon afterwards I found out that there was a submission under the title of BabylonJS that had been turned down but was still open for editing by someone with Username HoloLite. To ensure I was being open and transparent I informed RHaworth that rather than create a new draft with the title babylon.js and have two submission drafts on the go at the same time I would work on editing the BabylonJS draft. For reasons I have already explained it is important that the title is Babylon.js. Since I did not have the rights to change the title I applied to have it done but it was turned down, without any clear reason other than the move has opposition. I then found out that when an article is in the mainspace I would be able to change it myself provided I had sufficient edits credited. At this point I believed since I was only editing one page then that would be only 1 edit. As I was learning about anaglyph cameras at the time I read the anaglyph 3D page and noted that a reference was required in a sentence about Joseph D'Almeida. So I thought that this would be a good opportunity to gain edit credits. After research I found suitable references for the sentence and applied the edit. After further exploration I found out how to find my edit count and realised it was sufficient to do the move from BabylonJS to Babylon.js when it was in the mainspace. As it was never my intention to become a general editor of Wikipedia I did not seek to find any more possible edit opportunities.

I could see why the previous attempts at submission were turned down and set out to produce acceptable pages and in particular to demonstrate the notability of Babylon.js. To this end I researched and found verifiable evidence based on the existence of suitable sources and included them in the draft and rewrote the page to what I hoped was of encyclopedic quality.

2. Not only did I not know what a sockpuppet was until I looked it up after getting the block I have no idea how to achieve it. I am not nor ever have been nor ever used the username Hololite. I came across the article by him after my intention to create a Babylon.js page. Hololite had not edited the page since its rejection in June and I took that to mean that Hololite was no longer interested in re-editing the article. Also I can not see any reason why Hololite would edit under a different name. The article needed editing for improvement and if Hololite intended to do this why not under his own name?

Also Hololite has not been blocked and BabylonJS was still open for editing as the submission was turned down based on its content. So what has happened in my blocking is like the following.

The 5x5 club only admits members who know what the answer to 5x5 is. Hololite turns up and is asked "What is 5x5"? He says "23". He is told "Go away, come back when you know the answer." Then I turn up and am asked "What is 5x5". "25" I say and am told "Go away and never come back because you are Hololite in disguise."

I can see no way that I can prove I am not Hololite. A search for Hololite finds his Twitter page showing that he is a software developer & entrepreneur in California, USA whereas I am a retired teacher in the UK with a low on-line profile. You can find a little on me here [1] or here [2]

Finally as well as my editing being blocked the article BabylonJS has been deleted with no feedback on the content or indication that the content is suitable or not.

Therefore I request that my block on editing is reversed and feedback on the article is given.

Thank you for your time and attention. JohnK3142 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'll try to unravel this in an organized fashion.

You seem clearly not to be one of the apparently endless army of heartless and cold-blooded spammers whose sole interest in editing Wikipedia is to advertise their own product/band/career/whatever;
You apparently don't want to be an editor of the encyclopedia, either, you just want to write about one subject and you're interested just enough in the encyclopedia culture here to try to do it right;
I suspect but do not know that a page name ending in .js is viewed as undesirable because it identifies a page as a JavaScript document;
You are not having any luck drawing additional administrator attention to your dilemma.

I'm going to reverse the deletion, move the draft to User:JohnK3142/BabylonJS as a user sandbox page (cf. Help:My sandbox), remove the speedy deletion template which another editor had added, and unblock your account. Good luck with the rest of it, you might find additional assistance by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript.

You're welcome. – Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: (1) You may find "it was never my intention to become a general editor of Wikipedia" (quoting you above) an issue when your unblock request is addressed by another admin. (2) I blocked Hololite three minutes before I blocked you. – Athaenara ✉ 10:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To (1): So from the beginning I have been naive in believing that an article was judged on content based on a set of given criteria for the content. Instead it turns out that there is a further judgement made on the type of contributor you are. So you can be the type of contributor (E) that values an entity, knows about an entity is able to write about an entity and expects to be judged on the quality of the article and the notability of the entity and willing to improve the article to in terms of quality and provide evidence of notability and instead is blocked. Whereas the other type of contributor (S) is one who is good at and likes writing and editing and can exercise this skill by editing many pages who finds an entity to write about and will only be judged on content. Now I agree that type (S) is vital to Wikipedia to ensure the quality of its pages and does need to consider and judge submissions and I also think that making a judgement on the article because the contributor is type (E) is dangerous ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnK3142 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace draft page

Well, shoot, that was undone in a hurry: Dodger67 (talk · contribs) moved it back into draft space. If I were you, I'd ask Dodger67 about moving it back into your userspace and sorting out the templates so it's clearly identified as a userspace draft. – Athaenara ✉ 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara When a draft is submitted to AFC for review it is moved to draftspace, unless it is summarily declined for one of the "quick fail" reasons. So, if you wish to continue working on the draft do not submit it, you waste both your time, the reviewers time and it unneccessarily adds to the already long backlog. Only submit the draft when you actually want it to be reviewed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 (I assume by "you" you mean "one", as it's pretty clear I am not writing a page about babylon.js.) I think the problem was that I didn't remove templates identifying the page as belonging in the draft space, and I think those should be removed and it should be put back into this user's space. As I don't work in AfC (articles for creation) areas I'm unfamiliar with the technical niceties of managing that space and did not see what should obviously have been removed. If this motivated user with a very narrow focus of interest can work on it in draft space until it's acceptable in mainspace as it is on the French and Russian language wikipedias, then there's no need to put it back in his userspace, all well and good. – Athaenara ✉ 21:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: BabylonJS has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Babylon.js has been accepted

Babylon.js, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]