User talk:Ad65718

This is Ad65718's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eureka Scientific Inc. (June 29)

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eureka Scientific Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Eureka Scientific Inc., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Jamiebuba (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamiebuba Thank you for reviewing it. I significantly updated it and added more references to meet Wikipedia's standards. This article is similar to Space Science Institute, Space Studies Institute, and Associated Universities, Inc., which are not-for-profit 501(c) astronomy research institutes. Space Science Institute and Space Studies Institute should also be expanded to meet Wikipedia's standards. Regarding significant coverage, please check Scientific Publications (INSPIRE-HEP), Scientific Publications (ResearchGate), Nature Journal, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF) website, Fulbright Scholar Program and Wikimedia Commons. I think that its media coverage is similar to Space Science Institute also founded in 1992, but the article for Space Science Institute is incomplete. Ad65718 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ad65718! 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! Jamiebuba (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: White Dwarf Research Corporation (July 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 Timtrent 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 organizations and companies). 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: White Dwarf Research Corporation (July 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP) but presently does not. As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable . Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Many of the sources in teh draft are primary sources and so are unacceptable. To properly create such a draft page, please see referencing for beginners. Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements then resubmit the page and ping me and I would be happy to reassess.

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:White Dwarf Research Corporation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Astronomical Society of the Pacific logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Astronomical Society of the Pacific logo.png, which you've attributed to cited source is not PD. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to

This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:

To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Fair use

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
Template:Non-free use rationale may be helpful for stating the rationale.
This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

Ad65718 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Eureka Scientific logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Eureka Scientific logo.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to

This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:

To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Fair use

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
Template:Non-free use rationale may be helpful for stating the rationale.
This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

Ad65718 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eureka Scientific (July 25)

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 appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Eureka Scientific and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you review an artcile, try to provide detailed feedback, not a general comment. I just posted on Teahouse, how quickly you read it in just 5 seconds?! First read, then provide feedback, then make a decision! Not in just 5 second! Ad65718 (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on The Teahouse at 20.08pm I declined your draft at 21.19 I had quite enough time to decide that the draft was plainly advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Eureka Scientific has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eureka Scientific. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Ad65718. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Ad65718. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ad65718|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong I do not have any connection with this company. I made several contributions to other pages, e.g. Space Science Institute, Space Studies Institute, Southwest Research Institute, Planetary Science Institute similar to other people. If I am employed by all of these companies! This article Draft:Eureka Scientific was very short when I submitted. The reason that it was expanded was the rejection and ask for reliable sources. Based on your prejudice mentality, you do not need to review any of my articles, otherwise I will inform the site admin. Ad65718 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to report me to the "site admin" and you do not get to decide who reviews your drafts. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong You not to decide either. I am informing you now. Ad65718 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ad65718 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eureka Scientific (July 25)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No improvement just blindly re-submitted while removing undisclosed paid tag (now restored) If submitted again without substantial improvement, advise rejecting.

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:Eureka Scientific and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Slywriter (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: White Dwarf Research Corporation (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Only additions are more Primary sources. Notability can only be established through independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth

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:White Dwarf Research Corporation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Slywriter (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Eureka Scientific has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eureka Scientific. Thanks! Slywriter (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unexplained changes to information on Wikipedia, as you did at John Leach (studio potter). Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me, whether they are noticeable. You did not provide any independent and third-part references. Ad65718 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Leach (studio potter). You just cited four references, which wrote only a few sentences. Ad65718 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wiki page John Leach (studio potter), you made! Four references: one from Somerset Live and one from Falmouth Packet, which are not well-known sources. This article is very short, and did not provide any useful information. It has no Infobox

John Leach was a studio potter, the eldest son of David Leach and the eldest grandson of Bernard Leach. Born in St Ives in 1939, he studied under his grandfather and father at St Ives and under Ray Finch at Winchcombe.^[1] Leach left school in 1957 and worked with his father at Lowerdown Pottery Bovey Tracey, Devon and from 1961 to 1962 he was an apprentice at the Leach Pottery St Ives.^[2] He founded Mulcheney Pottery on the Somerset Levels^[3] in 1964, and developed a range of pottery using local clay and wood to fuel the kiln.^[4]

Ad65718 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly in retribution for Theroadislong declining your draft. Given you spent less than a minute per article adding a notability tag, it's clear that you didn't do any searching to see if they actually were notable. I would suggest stopping this now before you are blocked. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should not search to see if they are notable. The wiki page should demonstrate by references that they are notable. Those were very short articles with a few references from less well-known news websites. Ad65718 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given you spent 17 seconds between putting the tags on Emily McVarish and Brian Hanscomb, it's obvious you didn't even look through the references that are currently in the article. It takes more than 17 seconds to just read the article, not even including the time it takes to put the tag on. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuity Ingenuity.talk(); I see that you are good in recording time. I posted my request on Teahouse#Need_reviewers on 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC). I got a decline response from Theroadislong on 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC) and from Slywriter on 20:49, 25 July 2022‎ (UTC) in Draft:Eureka_Scientific, and a decline for significant coverage from Slywriter on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC) in Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation.

I just wonder when Theroadislong and Slywriter started to read my drafts, and when they finished their reading. It can easily be estimated if they did not edit any wiki pages between 20:08 and 20:19 for Theroadislong and between 20:08 and 20:49 for Slywriter. Interestingly,Slywriter finished review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:49 and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, which means 5 minutes for Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation! The time between my post on Teahouse#Need_reviewers on 20:08 and Theroadislong's report on 20:19 is roughly 10 minutes. However, whether Theroadislong and Slywriter made any editing on other wiki pages during these 5 minutes and 10 minutes. Ad65718 (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuity Ingenuity.talk(); For your information, Theroadislong finished his/her talk with 112.206.242.198 (User_talk:112.206.242.198) on 20:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC), which means just 3 minutes, which is the time he/she took to write her/his comments. You can check here:[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theroadislong&offset=20220726071241&target=Theroadislong

Ingenuity Ingenuity.talk(); For your information, Slywriter finished his/her talk with Benjamin Chiles (Talk:Benjamin Chiles) on 20:32, 25 July 2022‎, and start making comment in Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:49, 25 July 2022, which means 17 minutes, but she/he finished on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, which is the time he/she took to write her/his comments. You can check here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Slywriter&offset=20220725225033&target=Slywriter Ad65718 (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong did not even spend time to add Infobox for each person to those pages. If Theroadislong really values those wikipages, should search and add independent and third-part sources. Theroadislong does not want to spent time to add InfoBox and include independent and third-part sources. Ad65718 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no requirement for articles to have info boxes and they already have sufficient independent third party sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong I am not artist and I am not interested in pottery artists. I have never heard from John Leach (studio potter), Emily McVarish and Brian Hanscomb, the same way you have never heard about astronomical institutes such as Draft:Eureka Scientific, Space Science Institute ,Southwest Research Institute, and Planetary Science Institute. Based on my absent knowledge of pottery, John Leach (studio potter), Emily McVarish and Brian Hanscomb are not notable and not suitable for the Wikipedia. But when I am invited for a peer-review by a journal, I always accept it if it is within my field of expertise in astronomy. Ad65718 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "John Leach". www.studiopottery.com. Retrieved 2019-04-26.
^ Watson, Oliver (1993). Studio pottery. Phaidon. p. 211. ISBN 071482948X.
^ Colwill, Jack (2021-08-31). "Famed Somerset potter John Leach dies". SomersetLive. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
^ "Renowned potter to stage exhibition at Cornish birthplace". Falmouth Packet. Retrieved 2021-12-06.

It is totally irrelevant whether I have heard of "Eureka Scientific", I declined your draft because it was written like an advertisement. Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong The wiki page can be edited. You could remove those parts like an advertisement. I just simply found all texts on internet, and add them to the page. Those texts about their missions, etc, I directly copied from their website. Ad65718 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You CANNOT copy and paste content from elsewhere Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not copied and pasted. I rephrased some text myself and some using an online software (QuillBot). Ad65718 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Leach (studio potter) does not even have any record on https://www.wikidata.org which can be linked by using { { Authority control } } similar to his father David Leach (potter) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5236397 A noticeable person should have a record on https://www.wikidata.org added by internet bots. Ad65718 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Theroadislong (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright issue. Just 8.3% similarity: https://iw.toolforge.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:Eureka_Scientific&url= Ad65718 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with your personal attacks of editors will lead to you being reported to Administrators. As for timing, it does not take long to look at diffs and see no effort was made to improve a draft before re-submission nor does it take long to establish a non-notable article is using junk references. A better use of your time would be reading WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GNG WP:V, & WP:ABOUTSELF so that you understand the standards established by the community for sourcing of an article. Slywriter (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ad65718 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you go to WP:ANI and read the page carefully before filing, which I advise against as this is not going to end how you think it is. But if you insist on this community discussion, WP:ANI is the proper forum and notifications must be made to the talk page of any users mentioned. Slywriter (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ad65718 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion found at WP:ANI Slywriter (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it is waited for approval. Ad65718 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You finished your review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, so you did not spend any time to read Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation and check the references. It is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Slywriter&offset=20220725225033&target=Slywriter Ad65718 (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Ad65718 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, except maybe read WP:1AM or any of the other links I previously shared. Your articles do not meet the notability standards. Attempting to bully reviewers into accepting will not work and again, I see no discussion at WP:ANI. Slywriter (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Slywriter,_Theroadislong,_and_Cabrils Ad65718 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.

Personal attacks, hounding, and retaliatory editing are aggravating factors. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your block will prevent me from answering to comments in WP:ANI#Slywriter,_Theroadislong,_and_Cabrils. Ad65718 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles have notability issues. Very short, a few references, from non-reliable resources. An example is here John Leach (studio potter) one from Somerset Live and one from Falmouth Packet, which are less well-known sources. John Leach (studio potter) does not even have any record on https://www.wikidata.org which can be linked by using { { Authority control } } similar to his father David Leach (potter) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5236397 A noticeable person should have a record on https://www.wikidata.org added by internet bots. Ad65718 (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2022 (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).

Ad65718 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Those articles by Theroadislong have notability issues. An example is here John Leach (studio potter). Very short, a few references, from non-reliable resources. John Leach (studio potter) does not even have any record on https://www.wikidata.org which can be linked by using { { Authority control } } similar to his father David Leach (potter) ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5236397 ).

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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:35, 27 July 2022 (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.

Yes, you are now in a position where you need to address your own misbehavior. Until that happens and you have given persuasive assurances thst your misconduct will not resume, you cannot participate in any other discussions on Wikipedia. Your talk page is to discuss an unblock request, not to engage in retaliatory attacks on the work of other editors. So stop that. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles by Theroadislong have notability issues. An example is here John Leach (studio potter). Very short, a few references, from non-reliable resources. John Leach (studio potter) does not even have any record on https://www.wikidata.org which can be linked by using { { Authority control } } similar to his father David Leach (potter) ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5236397 ).

I did not vandalize any pages, except for { { Notability|1=Person|date=July 2022 } }. I was expecting that Theroadislong adds more reliable references to those pages to address the issues, not to remove { { Notability|1=Person|date=July 2022 } }. They do not have even Infobox. Ad65718 (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be caution, as your behaviour may get you barred from your own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have continued to criticize other editors instead of addressing your own misconduct, your talk page access has been revoked. Please read WP:UTRS for your options going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I give a persuasive assurance that my disruptive edits will not resume, and I did not make any disruptive edits since notice by Ingenuity on 21:30, 26 July 2022. Ad65718 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2022 (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).

Ad65718 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I hereby give an assurance that my disruptive edits will not resume, and I have not made any disruptive edits since the yesterday notice by User:Ingenuity. The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption since I will not make any disruptive edits to Wikipedia, and the block is no longer necessary because (1) I understood I have been blocked for "Disruptive editing, Personal attacks, hounding, retaliatory editing" as mentioned by User:Cullen328, (2) I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and (3) I will try to make useful contributions instead. I appreciate your time and consideration. Ad65718 (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No point in leaving this open after user's talk page access has been revoked. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2022 (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.

Ad65718 (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #61258

is closed. Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Eureka Scientific

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 Draft:Eureka Scientific, 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. Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Vodu3000 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodu3000. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: White Dwarf Research Corporation (July 27)

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:

created by sock of blocked user user:Vodu3000

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:White Dwarf Research Corporation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eureka Scientific logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eureka Scientific logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Eureka Scientific has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Eureka Scientific. Thanks! Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation

Hello, Ad65718. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Eureka Scientific

Hello, Ad65718. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eureka Scientific, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation

Hello, Ad65718. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "White Dwarf Research Corporation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Eureka Scientific

Hello, Ad65718. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eureka Scientific".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "John Leach". www.studiopottery.com. Retrieved 2019-04-26.

[sp-2] Watson, Oliver (1993). Studio pottery. Phaidon. p. 211. ISBN 071482948X.

[3] Colwill, Jack (2021-08-31). "Famed Somerset potter John Leach dies". SomersetLive. Retrieved 2021-12-06.

[4] "Renowned potter to stage exhibition at Cornish birthplace". Falmouth Packet. Retrieved 2021-12-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]