User talk:Alaborda

Welcome!

Hello, Alaborda, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Alaborda, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Drm310.

As the Wikipedia rules states: "the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources". The article about ASVAD that I want to publish is notable and reliable as is related to a new kind of valve recently patented around the world. Just consulting PATENTSCOPE it can be easily verified. Even more, there is a scientific article speaking about ASVAD...you can check it at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306454921002632

I hope this will be enough to satisfy your rejections and then l can publish again the article.

Regards

alaborda Alaborda (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Alaborda

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Alaborda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages 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. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
a workspace for a draft article
a personal website, blog, or social media site
a space for self-promotion or other advertising
a CV, resumé or lengthy autobiography

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Please use your user sandbox or the draft article space to practice editing or to create new articles. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drm310. I'm surprised by the express deletion of my page about ASVAD. This is my first article and I admit that the article was not finished when I published it. In fact, I have done it because I still don't know how to save the page, but without publishing. I'll learn about it ASAP (probably using the sand box).

But about your express deletion (just a couple of hours), I have to argue that I have a own website at www.asvad-nuclear.com, and then your rejection could not be properly founded... at least for this specific reason.

Soon, I'll try to publish again the article. In my opinion, the info shown is relevant for the Wikiusers as it describes a new kind of valve (recently patented around the world).

Regards

alaborda Alaborda (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. FASTILY 22:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see my last response to Drm310 below.

Thanks!

Regards Alaborda (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

My first article. Not for commercial purpose (no market to it). I'm NOT an spammer, just a scientific showing its work to the world. Interested to enhance the safety in the nuclear reactors around the world. Let me adapt the info to the Wiki rules. Why blocking me at the first "mistake"?

Really I'm so dangerous to Wiki?

I'm sure I'm not.

Decline reason:

"A scientific showing to the world" is exactly what promotion is. Wikipedia does not host original research. Please find a more appropriate forum to tell the world about your findings. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for your fast reply. I'm just a rookie creating an article. I can understand your suspicions, but my just intention is to put the plain info and no more than that. May I have not selected the proper expressions (English not my specialty), may I add inconvenient external links, but I consider too much aggressive the permanent banning just for my first mistake. Could just the page deletion were enough to punish this mistake... I try to do better the next time... if you give me the opportunity to do. At least I hope I’ve demonstrated that the article is a legitimate, verified, and useful info. If you finally decided do not release my account blockage… I will not burden further. This is my last appeal. Regards alaborda

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked to do what you plan. Wikipedia is not the place to show your work to the world. Yamla (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2023 (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.

Hello Fastily.

I'm very surprised by your "fastly" blockage.

You argue that there is an advertising page... Have you seen the page? have you seen any advertisement?

Do you know that this valve is a very special product ONLY for an specific use and NOT for the market?

Do you know that this valve solves a serious complication at the nuclear reactors?

Check this link...https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306454921002632

If you still have acces to the deleted page you can seen that there are only FACTS.

Please, reconsider your blocking action.

I can understand that these facts possibly can be written in a more neutral way, But when you indfinitely blocked me, you prevents that I can upgrade the article to fulfill the rules...

Again. Please, reconsider your blocking action, and I will try to write a good article.

Regards

alaborda Alaborda (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaborda: Wikipedia does not accept every subject that exists. A subject must meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable subject to be considered worthy of inclusion. To be considered notable, the subject must have already acquired signficant coverage in a variety of reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the subject itself. Subjects of narrow interest with little coverage in reliable sources won't be considered for inclusion.

"Promotion" has a broad definition here... one does not necessarily have to be selling goods or services, or even profit in a monetary sense. Using Wikipedia to publicize an obscure topic to gain a wider audience is also considered promotional. You can't use Wikipedia to gain notability for a topic; the topic must already be notable for it to be included. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS User:Drm310 very much for your last reply. It helped me to understand what Wiki are not. (I didn't understand your first message, sorry!)

Despite my deleted article can be interesting or even noteworthy for some people... I have to admit that IS NOT NOTABLE (at least yet).

So, I'll resign to write such article about the ASVAD valve.

But I also want to note that the main reason writing this article wasn't to obtain commercial profit or personal promotion. Unless you're the owner of a nuclear power plant, nobody will be interested to buy this item. My plain purpose was to put this info available to the people as another kind of safety valve... a special one. Just that.

Anyway, to directly & permanently block someone at its first mistake, it's so disencouraging to any well-meaning rokie editor. Some administrators could think deeper about it... Not every writer is a Troll. Not my case... Permanent block should be reserved to someone that repeatedly breaks the rules. Another thought about the speedy blockage... not all people are viewing all the pages in Wikipedia, during all the time. So could the supposed disruption, can be low enough to justify to taking "fastly" these hard measures. "Shoot fast, ask later".

see Wikipedia:Blocking policy

"As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review.

Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers)."

Thanks also to administrators User talk:Fastily, User:331dot, User:Yamla for their patience with me.

Have a good day!

alaborda Alaborda (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've given you the chance to demonstrate your understanding of what we have told you, but you have not done so yet. You may make a new request to try again. If English is not your primary language, you may edit the Wikipedia of your primary language. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it isn't the "premier" Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to profit from something to be promoting it. Promotion has a very broad meaning here. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your point of view.

From my humble point of view I'm just promoting KNOWLEDGE. (But do not trust on my words because I'm just a newcome, not english spoken & blocked editor).

But I want to add to our conversation these paragraphs extracted from the Wiki root pages...

from the Wikipedia:About

"Wikipedia is a dynamic free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit in good faith, and tens of millions already have! Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by containing information on all branches of knowledge."

"Anyone can edit Wikipedia's text, references, and images. What is written is more important than who writes it."

Probably it will be better to write about the complications of non-condensables during a LOCA nuclear accident, than writing about the solution designed to avoid it. Could this view can be more neutral or acceptable.

For the Admins:

from the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

"Although Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices."

"Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense"

"If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions. In the case of gross violations of community norms, they are likely to resort to more forceful means fairly rapidly."

"especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator"

Maybe some wikipedians are too accustomed to fight with Trolls and see this risk everywere (myself by example). Fast shoot... now I'm dead and harmless.

Don't be upset if i choose to keep silent from now on. I'm not here to discuss or argue... I'm just disencouraged. Will not appeal for UNBLOCK... do your best judgement.

I just tried to be here to ADD to WIKI a small (and new) piece of (neutral) KNOWLEDGE. I will not do it again (unless admin's opinion freely changes).

THANKS AGAIN (despite from our differences). I hope not having displeased you nor anyone else.

alaborda Alaborda (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]