User talk:Gcwcd

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Paul. Thanks! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please use inline citations and remove all the external links. WP:inline citations might be of use.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Paul and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gcwcd! 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! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Paul (scientist). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Paul (scientist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 07:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:John Paul (scientist), 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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 - are you able to email me a copy of the coded up article before it was deleted? Gcwcd (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gowcd, you copied at least one part of that article from the obituary published in the Independent--that alone is reason enough to delete it. In addition, the tone was just really promotional, and that is not a thing you can do. You asked about uploading documents--no, our articles need to be based on secondary sources. If you had paraphrased from the obituary and cited that, that would have been better already. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person that this article was about is long deceased. On the Beatson Institute for Cancer Research website (now CRUK) there are Wikipedia articles for all the other directors. This was the founding director of this Institute so the lack of a Wikipedia site represents a gap. Thinking that it was still just going through revisions, I had hoped that someone would point out if the article appeared overly promotional. However, everything was based on facts. There was a genuine attempt to stick to facts and not overdo it. Presumably if the facts are true and not exaggerated then it can't be classified as overly promotional? If a way can be found for the article to be rebuilt then I will be happy to take feedback on how facts can be stated without sounding overly promotional. Gcwcd (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored part of it--a part that looked like it wasn't copied. Please be careful: no copyright violations, no promotional, non-neutral language. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the block Bbb23? Gcwcd (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. what did you consider advertising and promotion about what was being said? Gcwcd (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm a beginner here. The original article was about a scientist long deceased at the end of last century and no-one can gain in any way from it by advertising or promotion. I've asked for help from the Wikipedia community because it was speedy deleted. I have now been blocked from talking and am totally baffled about what is happening here. I can't get an answer which makes sense of any of these actions to me so that they can be resolved. The user who deleted my article and who blocked me from discussion are the same person. The Wiki administrators guide states not to block without messaging the author about it first. There was no warning. Gcwcd (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no policy that requires a warning; admins can act to protect disruption without warning if necessary- and as copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, Bbb23 was well within their ability to act. It is possible to promote something or someone without gaining something from it; we see it every day. This request does not address the concerns. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2024 (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.

I was working on the draft when you tagged it for speedy deletion, why would you do that? Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gcwcd did not tag it for speedy deletion. I tagged it as G11, and Gcwcd blanked the page, which is technically incorrect (to remove the tag), but I then deleted it per G7.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of beginner mistakes here. Not sure how to navigate this minefield. I thought the article had been completely restarted as a draft so didn't think that deleting it was an issue. Can you let me know why you've blocked me from discussion? Gcwcd (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Theroadislong, I thought it was finished and decided to take it out because it was missing citations and I thought people might start to pick up on that. I'll put it back if I can. Must admit to being totally lost about all this. And big thanks for helping.

• Gcwcd, do not refactor a declined unblock request. You may comment, or you make another unblock request, but you can't change the one that an administrator declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gcwcd: looks like you might have received the wrong block template. Your block, according to the block log, was for copyright infringement, something you've discussed and corrected but not addressed in your request for unblocking. Elemimele (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23. Again I've been reading your guidelines since I can't ask anyone for advice, and, on the subject of unblocking, these indicate that this might take a day or two, possibly a week or so. It's been over 2 weeks. I really hope that someone is looking in detail at what I wrote so that they can tell me what specifically triggered the block. Elemimele is indicating that the wrong block template may have been applied since the original problem was noted as copyright. I see that a form of the article I started has been published, which is good news since I put a lot of time into researching this article and am hoping to document people involved in cancer and cancer research, a subject which a lot of people are affected by. Can you please let me know what stage this unblock request is at? Gcwcd (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember, administrators are simply volunteer editors who have been trusted by the community to use special tools, so administrative actions that are emergencies such as active protection from copyright infringment, vandalism, or harassment/abuse take immediate priority. In fact, that's why I'm answering your question; I'm a regular old editor, not an administrator, but I'm aware that there has been an administrative backlog at unblock requests, so I'm trying to pitch in just a little bit (no, I cannot unblock you).

My recommendation is to just continue to be patient; administrators do an immense amount of unpaid work and asking for updates to an unblock request is not going to get someone to review it more quickly. In fact, patience is a virtue; unblocking is an act of faith for any administrator, so displaying patience is more likely to build trust. The unblock request is listed on the table; there's definitely no need to ping any individual administrators and it may have the opposite effect to what you desire. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coffee Crumbs. It's clear that the volunteers are working hard here and, of course, it's commendable. Being new in here is tricky, especially when it isn't possible to ask what's going on. So it can feel a bit like everything that is happening is a bit random, hence trying to seek some clarity from the only source I can right now (unless there is any other way to communicate with someone else who can help with guidance whilst blocked), rather than trying to chivvy anyone up. Happy to wait it out...... Gcwcd (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works on consensus, so over the last 23 years, there have been a lot of discussions that have led to a lot of policies [Wikipedia:List of policies] and guidelines [Wikipedia:List of guidelines]. On top of that, there are lots of informal essays about policies and guidelines that have been written [Wikipedia:Essays], many of which have been adopted as good practice by many in the community.

So there's a lot that goes into making Wikipedia contributions. And jumping right in and writing a new article is like diving into the deep end of the pool on your first day of swimming! While there's a guideline about not biting the newcomers, in order to give new editors a bit more leeway, copyright stuff is a very big deal since that can lead to Wikipedia being sued and having to pay damages; it's the Wikipedia equivalent of seeing someone trying to light a cigarette near to a gas leak.

So be patient, and take this time to learn more about Wikipedia processes, should you want to continue to contribute after such time you're unblocked. And I want to you to keep contributing in a positive fashion and without even asking them, I'm certain Bbb23 and 331dot would feel similarly. It's just that protection for Wikipedia as a going concern comes as everyone's first priority, so good faith copyright violations end up being blocked just like bad faith vandalism and the like.

I have no reason at all to think you've done so, but I'd urge you to refrain from any notion of posting while logged out or registering a new account. I only say this become sometimes when people feel like things are taking too long, they'll do these things, and then lose their editing privileges for far longer than if they had just waited in the first place and occasionally, forever, in egregious cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoffeeCrumbs. OK thanks for helping and clarifying. It's not my intention to set up another account. I'll take another break from Wikipedia for a bit and hope that gives time for this to get sorted out. Gcwcd (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coffeecrumbs. I waited for the unblock request to be looked at but no-one looked at it so my request has now been declined on the basis that no-one has looked at it. There were some helpful comments posted on my talk page and in response to blogs I created but these have all been deleted so I can't respond to these people for more advice. So I have no idea what to do now. Since you had offered some advice and no-one involved in the block has been able to advise why it was blocked, you are the only person I'm hoping can help advise on this. What am I supposed to do, or best to do now? It says to request it again but this looks like a way of just sending me off in a never ending loop! I'm really hoping you can help with some advice. Does this happen to all new editors? Thank you for any guidance. Gcwcd (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yamia closed my unblock request but I can't use the 'reply' button on the feed that has been provided by Yamia since it doesn't seem to allow me to use it. It says I need to use the inline editor but I've previously been told off for using that to reply. Fortunately your reply button works but I suspect that might be changed soon so I won't be able to ask anyone for advice. I've been giving this whole situation the benefit of the doubt (I know people are volunteers, things take time, I'm new to this so need pointers etc.) but am beginning to think that, since one of the reviewers commented that the original speedy deletion was outrageous (this was shortly thereafter deleted so I couldn't reply to that reviewer) that this has been a bit of a compounding mistake and no-one wants it to be known. I really hope, and have been assuming that's not true, but can't think of any other reason why this is being made so difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if someone stops my account completely after I post this, if that's possible, but there isn't much else they can do to keep me from engaging with Wikipedia really! How does anyone new actually manage to engage with this process when I researched this all thoroughly before starting, including copyright, submitted it for review three times and only made changes relevant to the comments returned, only after which all this deleting and banning started? Gcwcd (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've been told that the original speedy deletion request was because I quoted from an Obituary in the Independent. I didn't appreciate that I wasn't allowed to quote from a newspaper although was quite certain that it was only cited. I had read up on copyright and understood that quoting a small part was acceptable. Anyhow, if this is not correct then I won't do it again and will find out more about what the boundaries are for quoting from articles. I then went to seek help but got blocked from posting and it is this block that I'm asking to be removed. The blocker, who had also speedy deleted the article, stated the reason as advertising and I have asked for clarification on the specifics of this. I've been waiting for a response since I need to know the specifics in order to be able to avoid doing it again. I understand the need for policing of material on Wikipedia, agree with the need 100% and have every intention and desire to stay within the rules of this site. Now though I can't ask anyone for advice about this, why it happened or how it can be remedied and avoided. So in order to do this I really need to be able to reach out for some help and can only do this if the posting ban is lifted. I didn't even know that draft articles can be speedy deleted. I notice now that I have a mentor and, provided they are happy for this then I'm keen to ask them as much as possible to avoid anything like this happening again. That was one bad day! The actual article is also now blocked to editing for a bit so I guess I'll have some time to ask my questions of my mentor and any other more seasoned authors willing to help, how this can be avoided. I certainly don't want all that to happen again on a personal level and, on the Wikipedia authoring level, don't want to break any site rules. Gcwcd (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2024 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block is for advertising but where, what and how I was advertising has not been explained by administrator, despite various requests for communication. I have no intention to breach rules but need to know where, what, how this breach arose. Unblock request was declined because no-one investigated my last unblock request. All the comments in my last unblock request remain.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - no response to my follow-up questions after several weeks. Please post a new appeal if you would still like to pursue an unblock. Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 2 October 2024 (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 place new posts at the bottom to maintain chronological flow. This may be easier to do if you click "edit" and not "reply". Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gcwcd, if you can agree to edit with the full understanding that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and editors need to communicate civilly with each other, even when in disputes, I will unblock your account in order to allow you to try this whole "editing Wikipedia" thing again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]