Jump to content

User talk:Publicationaccess

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Publicationaccess, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: F. Gregory Holland (February 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Publicationaccess! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of F. Gregory Holland

[edit]

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 F. Gregory Holland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: F. Gregory Holland (April 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
too much unsourced content
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please enable edits. There is no compensatory items associated with drafting this article. The username is not associated with any group either. Perhaps we should not have been included within the recent request. Please assist. The user name is associated with an individual and not an organization. There is collaboration with others for writing and research but not for compensation. The sources listed are not intended for promotion purposes within the subject draft. Please advise further on sources. That meaning, specifically which references appear without a suitable source.Publicationaccess (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

[edit]
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

  • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
  • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 15 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Publicationaccess is not associated with an organization writing of the article is non-compensatory.

Decline reason:

While "publicationaccess" may not be an organization, you are clearly part of some organization as you used "we" in this edit. You will need to review the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; from your edits it appears to me you represent the subject you were writing about in some manner. You will need to disclose any connection you have to the subject; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable if you are a paid representative or editor. I also think you need to select a single individual to exclusively use this account from here forward, and propose a new username that is not promotional. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2019 (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.

Please enable editing. Publicationaccess is a recent editor within the Wikipedia space. The draft article that is currently being edited is not intended for promotion purposes, but rather to provide factual data regarding the subject article. Thank you in advance for your assistance.Publicationaccess (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are appreciated. Regretfully, the views cited are presumptive. Heretofore, reasonable attempts were implemented in an effort to improve upon the draft, which apparently has now been deleted. Please advise if there is a log to perhaps refer to the deleted article for future reference. The purpose of the inquiry was to sincerely obtain assistance in improving upon the subject draft. This is disappointing. Thank you in advance for your assistance.Publicationaccess (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia has certain guidelines that need to be observed. You are free to make another unblock request, one that will be reviewed by someone else, but whomever reviews it will likely have the same questions I have. It is true I am being presumptive, but it is based on the edits you have made. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is appreciated. Please advise if the subject draft article can be retrieved and restored. The edits made are based on information obtained through public sources. At this point, I am uncertain as to where one would even view or locate the draft. Thank you so much.Publicationaccess (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the draft is "deleted" and not visible to the public in general, it is still visible to administrators like myself. I would be willing to email the text to you(if you have email enabled in your Preferences) if you have need of it but I regret to say it is not going to be restored as things stand now. If unblocked you would be able to request a Deletion Review, but both would require you to address the concerns given here; and you would still be bound by WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your follow-up is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, there is nothing within the preferences area. Given the outcome of these circumstances thus far, providing sensitive information such as an email address, within this space is concerning. However, I will deliberate on it. In the interim, please advise specifically the concerns that require explanation. It has only been as of today, that the edits made for the subject draft have been mentioned as a cause for concern. The last comment today prior to the delete indicated that references were not sourced. Prior to that, the education and career section needed inline citations. An attempt was made to address that. At no time was there any information to indicate that all edits made were concerning. Feel free to expand on this. Kind regards.Publicationaccess (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not provide your email address here. If you click on "Preferences" located at the top right of the screen, the "user profile" screen should appear. If you scroll down, there should be a button under "email options" that gives you the option to add an email address. Below that should be a box that you can check marked "allow others to email me". 331dot (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you make another unblock request, you will need to please address the reason for the block and my comments in your first unblock request. For clarity, I will list these:
  1. Indicate if this account represents an organization/business
  2. confirm that this account is (or will be) used exclusively by a single individual
  3. propose a new username that complies with the username policy(even if it is not that of a specific organization, your current name is promotional)
  4. Indicate if you represent F. Gregory Holland or anyone else, per the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy(click to review)
  5. Review policy on reliable sources and specifically sourcing for Biographies of Living People
  6. Indicate what edits you would make going forward and how they will be consistent with the aforementioned policies
I believe that covers it, though whomever reviews any request you make is free to have their own requests. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have previously addressed the above items you have indicated in a prior comment. At approximately 18:36 UTC. Additionally,the original user name was a random name. No other individuals use the name. Another can be randomly be selected. Hope this helps. I will attempt another unblock request with an alternate user name. Kind regards.Publicationaccess (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Request reason:

Prior and current proposed username, as well as the subject draft article are intended to be non-promotional. The user previously and going forward is the sole editor and creator. All editing will be predicated on available public sourced information non-compensatory and with no incentives. Please restore the prior draft article, so it may be potentially considered for the main article space. Inquiries and assistance will continue to be sought from Wikipedia experienced editors and administrators. Current and updated policies will be adhered to. Thank you in advance for your consideration. This is being requested through the direction of another administrator as indicated on the talk page. Kind regards Publicationaccess (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC).

Decline reason:

You need to specifically address the questions raised by 331dot above. Yamla (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy follow-up regarding the status of an unblock request. Please advise. Publicationaccess (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This comment is a repeated request. An unblock is requested. Prior and current proposed username, as well as the subject draft article are intended to be non-promotional. The user previously and going forward is the sole editor and creator. All editing will be predicated on available public sourced information non-compensatory and with no incentives. Please restore the prior draft article, so it may be potentially considered for the main article space. Inquiries and assistance will continue to be sought from Wikipedia experienced editors and administrators. Current and updated policies will be adhered to. Thank you in advance for your consideration. This is being requested through the direction of another administrator as indicated on the talk page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicationaccess (talk • contribs)

Only one open request is needed, so I removed the formatting from your most recent request. Posts should be placed at the bottom of the page as well, for proper flow. Your request is visible to administrators and will be reviewed in due course; as administrators are volunteers, they do what they can when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that update, was not completely certain about the response process. That's very helpful. As a side note, prior editing utilizing the phrase " we" quite possibly may have been taken out of context. Understandable. Kindest regards. 21:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Publicationaccess (talk)


This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Request reason:

It is trusted that these comments will not be construed as redundant, as they have been addressed. This is a request for an unblock and a restore of the prior subject draft article. 1. The user account does not represent an organization. 2. The account is an individual user account. 3. The proposed user name is non- promotional as is the present one. 4. No representation of another exists. 5. The policy on reliable sources was reviewed as well as sourcing biographies for living individuals will be deferred to going forward. 6. Edits will be made which are pertinent and neutral. Thank you very much for your assistance and consideration. Publicationaccess (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To be frank- and I apologize for it- it seems to me that you are giving general answers, trying to dance around the questions. You have not explained who "we" is in your post that I linked to above. Do you know, work for, or represent Mr. Holland, or do you work for an agency that does? If not, how did you come to write about him? What "pertinent and neutral" edits do you intend to make? Please briefly explain what exactly is meant by a "reliable source" according to policy. You need to be specific with your answers or I think most admins are going to have a tough time unblocking you. Maybe one will, as I don't speak for all of them, but I don't advise it at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2019

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Request reason:

The reason for requesting an unblock is to continue being able to contribute. There have been issues raised which I have attempted to address. The comments received are appreciated. I am expanding on this request as follows: This seems to be a case of presumptions. My comments pertaining to an edit in a referenced link above were a figure of speech. I work independently, much like many of the individuals who contribute within this space. I cannot speak to what one's interpretations may be. In addressing my contributions and its content, editing on any subject matter in which I choose, would be predicated on my research and creditable sources, including the public domain.

I do understand that articles are intended not to be promotional in nature, as this space in meant to be an Encyclopedia, meaning that the data should be an informational resource. Do I speak with others on topics of interest? Of course. I don't work for any of these individuals, neither do they work for me or any agency etc. ( We- do share ideas) Without being to assuming, everyone like myself has many interests in a variety areas. My choice of writing on any subject matter is going to be based on interest. Information may be gathered from interviewing others as well who may have additional knowledge on a subject.

From what I can ascertain regarding Wikipedia's position on reliable sources, it appears to denote that reliable should be based on published information. This data should have a consistent, as well as a trustworthy protocol for the publishing of such information. Given the fact that anyone can edit, may give way to some subjectivity. Also, its my understanding that verification of information of a subject, does not necessarily guarantee inclusion into the main article space, nor does verification ensure retention if already within the article space. I have attempted to address the items, as requested. As stated within point 4, there is no representation of anyone at this time. Publicationaccess (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Thank you. Kind regards.[reply]

Accept reason:

While not 100% convinced by the rationale in your unblock request I am prepared to give you one final chance to prove yourself. Before editing please go straight to Special:GlobalRenameRequest and request your change in username. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You state now that "there is no representation of anyone at this time"(my emphasis), while earlier you stated "No representation of another exists". Do you anticipate representing someone in the future? 331dot (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is appreciated. There is no representation. Additionally, no representation of another exists or is anticipated in the future. Thank you very much. Kindest regards. Publicationaccess (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a courtesy follow-up on the prior block request, as I have responded and commented on April 21, 2019. Thank you in advance.Publicationaccess (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have previously addressed as stated from the comment dated April 26. Please accept this appeal. Thank you in advance for your assistance.Publicationaccess (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further unblock requests are not necessary. Your request is open and visible; there is a limited number of volunteer administrators available, and ones that have already declined your requests cannot review another. You will have to be patient. If you wish, you can spend time improving your request to be more persuasive. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Publicationaccess&oldid=1046616013"