User talk:RegHann

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).

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

Request reason:

I AM SO CONFUSED AS TO HOW TO PUBLISH ARTICLES ON Wikipedia. everything I DO SEEMS TO GET ME BLOCKED. What am I doing wrong??

Decline reason:

Please tell us what other account you have used, which is blocked. Unless we know what the account is there is nothing we can do to help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:09, 1 November 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.

I'm posting here after seeing your edit in the Recent Changes page. There does not seem to be a block on this username. If you were blocked under a different username, you need to return to that username and request to be unblocked there. If you ability to edit your user talk page was removed, you need to request to be unblocked through WP:UTRS. Either way, creating a new username to avoid the block is sockpuppetry and not permitted.

Without knowing what you have attempted to do(as there are no other edits under this username) it is difficult to help you, but in general I can say that creating an article is probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia. Those who are most successful at it started small by editing existing articles to learn how Wikipedia works. Reading WP:YFA also may help. As I said, though, you need to properly request an unblock first. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Thank you for this very helpful response. I was advised that I cant use a group account to add edits so I used my own account. But it does not seem to want to let me edit or add articles. It must be because of the previous block on the previous account. However, my attempts at getting the previous use unblocked seems to be failing. Can I rather just delete the previous user account and start from scratch?

Accounts cannot be deleted due to the structure of Wikipedia. Currently new users cannot create articles until they are autoconfirmed. As I indicated, there is not a block on this account, so I'm not sure why you would be unable to edit in general. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might help me or others to help you if you posted the message you get when you attempt to edit an existing article. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot When trying to add an article as user:RegHann I get the message "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address" and "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Discoveryorkshirecoast". The reason given for Discoveryorkshirecoast's block is: ... "

I am not an administrator but I can say from my own observations on Wikipedia that if you still intend to edit about the tourism board that you seem to represent, you will not be unblocked. In order to be unblocked the administrators will likely want you to agree to not edit about your tourism board. Please read WP:COI about conflict of interest and WP:PAID about paid editing(if you are employed by this tourism board). Merely telling us about your tourism board is considered promotional on Wikipedia, especially if you work for them. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then why does our sister Tourism Board have a page up with no problem. Our sister Toursm Board is Welcome To Yorkshire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Yorkshire). All I am trying to do is put up some info as to who the Tourism Board is for that area just like the other site has done. I do not understand why I am being blocked but they are allowed to do it.

JamesBWatson Hi James. Please read previous correspondence. The original article on the Yorkshire Coast Tourism Board was posted by User: Discoveryorkshirecoast. This was blocked. I have tried to amend the content and user name but no luck. I then logged in as my own account user:RegHann to try and add an article. However I was again blocked because of the previous user. What I can not understand is why "Welcome to Yorkshire" can post a page on their tourism department (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Yorkshire) but I am blocked from doing so. I have re-written the content on the Tourism Department for the Yorkshire Coast but cant use it as I am still blocked. I think my biggest question now is why can Welcome to Yorkshire post an article but I cant?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which has articles about subjects shown to be notable in independent reliable sources. As this is not a general information or directory website, not every organization merits an article here, even organizations within the same field. Please see WP:OSE. Further, I see no evidence that the page you speak of was written by a person or persons who work for that tourism board(If you have such evidence, please offer it). Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, which precludes those with a conflict of interest from directly editing in the area of their COI.

Wikipedia is interested in users who want to contribute to this project as a whole. If you are only interested in writing about your tourism board to tell the world about it, you will need to do it in another forum(which you might find at WP:OUT). 331dot (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Thank you. I am starting to understand slowly. Please forgive my ignorance. I have many articles I was to contribute to and Discover Yorkshire Coast is only one of them. There are other users in my circle, some I know and some I don't , who also want to contribute. I am not trying to promote any particular company or brand as I do realize the neutrality of Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_Kingdom is a good example. Here is a page about tourism in the UK. Did you know that I have just found out that Scarborough is the 2nd highest visited city in the UK...second to London. My point is that this should be public knowledge. I have no advantage or gain in posting these articles. I am infact researching other interesting facts around the world. I am happy for my text to be tested to see if it is neutral in flavor...but I don't seem to be having much luck. How would I write about other articles if I am still blocked?

I stress that I am not an administrator, but I do know that if you agree to not directly edit about your tourism board and declare your relationship with the tourism board(i.e. if you work for them), it will likely be looked on positively. I would suggest making a new unblock request doing that and additionally explaining the sorts of edits you intend to make. I don't suggest this as a guarantee, but as a way forward. I'm sure actual administrators will have better advice. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are being put through what must be a rather frustrating experience, as you evidently came here in good faith, and had no idea that you would encounter such problems. I will say a few things which I hope may clarify the issues, and perhaps also provide a way forward.
I have looked at the article Welcome to Yorkshire, which you drew attention to. It does seem to be true that it was created by an editor with a personal involvement, with promotional intention, so I have posted a message about that to the editor's talk page. Also, the article is somewhat promotional in tone, and could do with some clean up. Perhaps I will look into working on it soon.
However, while I have said that the article Welcome to Yorkshire is "somewhat promotional in tone", the pages you created were far more than that: they were straight marketing copy from beginning to end. If you are to be unblocked you will need to persuade an administrator that you will do a different kind of editing in future.
You say that you have "re-written the content on the Tourism Department for the Yorkshire Coast". I suggest that you post the rewritten version to the bottom of this page so that it can be reviewed. When you have done that you can either alert me, so that I can come back and look at it, or post another unblock request so that any administrator can consider it. To alert me, post a message to this page, with {{ping|JamesBWatson}} at the top of that message, and ~~~~ at the bottom of it. (Note: It is essential to do those two things in the same edit. Putting {{ping|JamesBWatson}} in one edit and then coming back and putting ~~~~ in another will not result in a notification to me.)
If you choose to alert me then I will look at the content you have submitted. If it seems to me to be suitable to post as an article, or even to be potentially suitable but not yet ready, then I will unblock you, and the content can be copied either directly into an article or into a draft for further work. If you post an unblock request then whatever administrator reviews that request will make a decision. Until one or other of those happens I will place a block directly on this account, rather than just the autoblock, because that will avoid doubts about what happens if the autoblock ceases to function.
I am very unlikely to come back to this today, because of lack of time, but I hope to be available tomorrow morning. If you place another unblock request then it is totally unpredictable how long it will take for an administrator to respond: if you are lucky it could be a matter of minutes, if you are unlucky it could be many days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Thank you James. Here is the first draft of the edited text. I have tried to make it as factual and neutral as possible.

=============================

Yorkshire Coast Tourism Authority Discover Yorkshire Coast (DYC) is the official tourism authority for the Yorkshire Coast (United Kingdom), and forms part of the district of Yorkshire which is the UK's largest county. This association is run by The Local authority, the Scarborough Borough Council.

In recent years, DYC has become involved in a range of new campaigns and initiatives. Aside from the more traditional forms of tourism usually associated with tourist boards, DYC has been involved in cultural partnerships such as the Tour De Yorkshire annual cycle race, Armed Forces Day, Various Sea-fests, Goth Weekends and the Scarborough Open Air Theatre. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Open_Air_Theatre)

A key component of the DYC brand is its website, which serves both as a base for the various campaigns and promotions launched by the organization and as a database for tourism across the county. DYC also deals with all forms of applications for filming permission from various bodies around the UK and the globe. Departments: 1. Call Centre: Manned 7 days a week in-season and 6 days a week out-of-season from 9am – 5pm. 2. Marketing: Small team dealing with all forms of marketing across the district 3. Digital: Manages the social media and web site functions for the department 4. Filming: Manages permissions etc. for all filming requests in the area.

========================================================

RegHann (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson:

Thanks, Reg. That is very much more like an acceptable neutral article than your previous attempts. It still needs work on it before it is suitable as an article, especially in terms of references, but it is a reasonable draft to work from. I have consulted the administrator who blocked your original account as to whether he thinks unblocking you is suitable. I hope you will have an answer soon, but you may have to be patient for a while.
My usual advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. That advice will probably not be much help to you, but it may help you to be awared that there are frequently many difficulties for editors who start right off by creating new articles.
A few very simple points about linking, which should be useful to you if you are eventually unblocked. When linking from one Wikipedia page to another, rather than writing something like "...Goth Weekends and the Scarborough Open Air Theatre. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Open_Air_Theatre)" you should just write "...Goth Weekends and the [[Scarborough Open Air Theatre]]", which displays as "...Goth Weekends and the Scarborough Open Air Theatre", with the link embedded in the sentence, rather than breaking the text of the page up with cumbersome looking links.
Above, I mentioned references, and I will say a few words about what is needed. A wikipedia article should always have references to independent reliable sources, both to make the content of the article verifiable, and to demonstrate notability. In some ways those two functions can both be served by the same references, but in other ways they are very different functions, and the requirements are different. For example, for verification of the fact that the "Discover Yorkshire Coast" is run by Scarborough Borough Council, a statement to that effect on either Discover Yorkshire Coast's web site or Scarborough Borough Council's web site would be ideal, but to demonstrate notability neither of those would be any use at all, as we need coverage by independent sources: any organisation can post stuff about itself on its own web site, even if it is not remotely notable or significant.
There are various pages of guidelines on the subject of how to provide references. In fact in my opinion one of the worst things about Wikipedia is that there are far too many policies and guidelines, and most of them are unnecessarily long and complicated, making things confusing for new editors. When I first started editing I found Wikipedia:Citing sources quite intimidating, and even Help:Referencing for beginners is in my opinion more complex than it should be. However, you should at least have a quick look one or both of those, and also at the guideline on reliable sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Dear James. Thank you so much for the effort you have put in to assisting me. I completely understand and will take great care if I get a chance to edit further. I will do some reading on the topics you suggested. Can I ask one last question then. Am I right in assuming that the "sandbox" is a place to edit and test which then doesn't go live? If that is the case then maybe I can edit the content there and then ask you to take a quick look before publishing. Once again, thank you for your comments and advice. RegHann (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I recommend creating a personal sandbox, at User:RegHann/sandbox, rather than the "public" sandbox, as it avoids getting your test edits mixed up with those from other editors. Also, if the content you intend to put there is a draft for an article, rather than general test edits to find how things work, then better still is making a draft at a page such as Draft:Discover Yorkshire Coast. There is a mechanism for submitting such a draft for review by an experienced editor. I don't have time to say more about that now, but the short version is that when you think the draft may be ready to go as an article you can put {{subst:submit}} at the top of it, and wait for a review. I'm afraid in my opinion for a couple of reasons the system isn't as good as that may make it sound, but as I say I don't have time to say more now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Thanks James. Will do. RegHann (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Hi James. Can I go ahead and create a sandbox or draft copy so long? When will I be unblocked? Can I do this while still being blocked? RegHann (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately unblocking has not turned out to be as straightforward as I expected. Yunshui, who blocked your previous account, does not think that unblocking you will benefit the project. There is also the point, alluded to above by 331dot, that unblocking an editor whose sole purpose seems to be to use Wikipedia to publicise the organisation they work for is not commonly done, and an administrator who declined an unblock request on your previous account, at User talk:Discoveryorkshirecoast, said "to be unblocked, you will need to NOT edit on your company". My own feeling is that when an editor has shown a genuine willingness to avoid editing in a promotional way, it is reasonable to give him or her a second chance, but I am reluctant to unilaterally unblock when I know that two other administrators have expressed an opinion against unblocking under the present circumstances. Also, although I said above that the draft content you have posted on this page is "very much more like an acceptable neutral article than your previous attempts", I deliberately stopped short of saying that it was fine, and indeed specifically said that it "still needs work". Although it is a long way from the unambiguous marketing copy which you had previously posted, it is still somewhat promotional in tone. Yunshui also points out that the draft content you have posted to this page is substantially copied without attribution from the article Welcome to Yorkshire. Technically that makes it a copyright infringement, as Wikipedia's licensing terms require attribution for any reuse of content, but that can easily be dealt with by adding a note saying where it is copied from. However, the discovery that when you said "I have re-written the content on the Tourism Department for the Yorkshire Coast" you meant that you had hurriedly altered a few words in content you copied and pasted from another article, which was itself unmistakably promotional, must reduce any faith in the likelihood that you will edit usefully in future.
All in all, there are enough doubts there to decide me against an immediate unblock. If you wish to, you may post another unblock request in the hope of persuading another administrator that unblocking you will benefit the project. (Please note that it is that way round, not that unblocking you will give your organisation the "right" to use Wikipedia to publicise itself.) If you do post such an unblock request, I shall accept whatever the administrator who reviews that request decides: he or she will no doubt read what I have written here, and does not need to consult me further. Also, although Yunshui has said "I'm not in favour of unblocking; I won't contest it if you choose to do so", so presumably he too will be happy for any other administrator to decide the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]