User talk:Bigbenwalrus

This is Bigbenwalrus'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: Gideon Bernstein (January 7)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still nothing to satisfy our standards as what's here isn't significant enough.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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

SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Gideon Bernstein has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gideon Bernstein. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Gideon Bernstein

Draft:Gideon Bernstein, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gideon Bernstein and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Gideon Bernstein during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Huon (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gideon Bernstein (January 8)

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

It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous rather than factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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

Huon (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Bigbenwalrus, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Huon (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand. Everything I have put on Draft:Gideon Bernstein has been factual and I have cited all the sources I have found information from. Although the 'Cult of Bernstein' may seem bizarre, the books I have sourced have clearly stated that it exists. I think this block is completely unfair, please reconsider.

Decline reason:

Apart from one which doesn't even mention him, there are no checkable online sources in that draft. And I can find nothing about him via a Google search. And Huon has checked some of the alleged sources at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gideon Bernstein, and they're faked. This is a blatant hoax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for the speedy response but I am confused. On the miscellany for deletion page, it gives a link to the book that does not have a copy of the book on it, just a description. Bernstein will not be mentioned in a description of a book like that because he is mentioned in it but he is not the only philosopher mentioned, just a part of it and so why would he be part of the description. I think the outright dismissal of Bernstein is unfounded as he is mentioned in the references.

Decline reason:

Hooey. I wrote one of these about myself when I was in sixth grade. I wish I still had it. Regardless, we don't get to make up stories and put them in Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:55, 8 January 2017 (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.

Huon presumably checked the book itself, and I have now checked the book itself, and it makes no mention of any Gideon Bernstein or Giddy-Widdle. There is also no mention of any Gideon Bernstein in any Philosophy texts (or any books at all) that I can find. I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page in order to stop this waste of time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]