User talk:Postconfused/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Postconfused. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lilie Chouliaraki (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/WhosWho/AcademicStaff/LilieChouliaraki.aspx. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Lilie Chouliaraki may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

(t) Josve05a (c) 01:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Ms4263nyu, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! (t) Josve05a (c) 01:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lilie Chouliaraki (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lilie Chouliaraki and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not overzealous. If it's submitted it appears on the list of articles to review. Don't submit until you're comfortable the article is ready. Have you read WP:YFA? On the PD notice see Template:PD-notice. That LSE article is copyright though - make sure that the source is actually Public domain Gbawden (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh and you might want to read the notability criteria for academics at WP:NACADEMIC - they also have to meet WP:GNG Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lilie Chouliaraki has been accepted

Lilie Chouliaraki, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

joe decker ^talk 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, the re-submission looks much better. I will take another look too. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for abusively editing while logged out in violation of WP:SOCK. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried to contact the administrators to apologise for what happened but I wasn’t successful. Like most of your editors, I am an amateur. I wrote my only contribution two years ago and recently proposed to delete an article. In both cases I have learnt the correct process by making a few mistakes. Replying to David Epstein from my ip without being logged-in was a gross error. It wasn’t my intention to mislead administrators or alter the debate. Certainly I do understand and agree with your decision to block my account. Once again, my sincere apologies and thank you for your passion and dedication to developing and supporting wikipedia. Ms4263nyu (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to contact Bbb23 to apologise for what happened but apparently he left the project. After 4 months, I would like to present an official request to unblock my account and IP. Your passion and dedication to developing and supporting wikipedia is remarkable and I would like to keep contributing to this community. Thanks for your time to evaluate my request. Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2020 (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. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2020 (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.

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

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

Request reason:

Thank you very much for your quick answer, the reasons were above my request and were published at the end of December. I thought were included automatically in my request. Like most of your editors, I am an amateur. I wrote my contribution two years ago and proposed to delete an article in December. Indeed, I have learnt the correct process by making a mistake. Writing from my ip without being logged-in was a gross error. It wasn’t my intention to mislead administrators or alter the debate. As I wrote in December, I understood and agreed with your decision to block my account. After my apology, I waited for four months before requesting the present unblock. I do not have reasons to disrupt the work of this amazing community. Once again, my sincere apologies and thank you for your passion and dedication to developing and supporting wikipedia. I do hope you will trust my good will and give me a second chance. Ms4263nyu (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked per AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the blocking administrator has left the project, I'm posting this appeal to WP:AN for community input. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock appeal by Ms4263nyu. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not recommend to do so unless someone asks a question, but if this happens, you are welcome to reply here on this page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for your attention to my request, I really appreciate your dedication. As you are asking about Biancalu123, she is a colleague from LSE. During the British elections, we both watched on Italian tv Mr. Brunello Rosa claiming he was an academic at LSE and partner of Prof. Nouriel Roubini so I submitted the Afd from my account. After my block, Biancalu123 posted from her account a new motivation to support my request. However, I invited her to remove any comments as she could have mislead administrators. Her motivation didn't add any new point to previous request. Furthermore, she is member of the LSE and, according to Wiki's policy, friends or colleagues are not allowed to vote. You can easily double check that we are two different persons, you can verify we write and live in different countries and I can provide our phone numbers. In addition, she deleted her comment 4 months earlier than my present request. In my defense, I replied to David Epstein using my ip without being logged-in and I was blocked. I was not pretending to be a different person. I did not vandalize or disrupt any content. Nonetheless, I understood and apologized without complaining. I waited for a few months (4 months) before asking you to consider unblocking my account. As many of you, I am locked down (covid19) and universities are closed till September, so I am more than happy to help contribute to the encyclopedia in this period. --Ms4263nyu (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@ST47: Biancalu123 posted her comment after I was blocked. She deleted her comment in 1 hour and 5 minutes for the reasons I explained above to Newyorkbrad. I personally know Biancalu123, she is a colleague from LSE. Her post might have mislead the debate so she retracted her comment. As you can verify from Articles_for_deletion/Brunello_Rosa there was not dishonest behavior from neither her nor me. --Ms4263nyu (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett, ToBeFree, and TonyBallioni: Newyorkbrad invited to respond to his comment. I replied in the same page saying that my IP and user were blocked. I simply explained the situation and signed with my username here the text. Few hour laters, I realized, I was able to modify my own talk page and I moved the 2 messages to this page. My apologies for the confusion. Ms4263nyu (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)