User talk:Sc7n2T4v6

Welcome!

Hello, WIKI-1-PIDEA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Favonian (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring: Angle trisection

For: MuZemike

Thank you for providing a cool-off period to resolve this problem. I am writing because your approach, although being fast, however, leaves three stones unturned:

1) It does not accommodate for a "speedy deletion" of information last placed under the seventh heading entitled By infinite repetition of bisection located on the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisection, though, which remains in violation of United States copyright TXu 636 519. This is because reported users last deleted my corrections/updates and still refused to acknowledge a potential COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT after being notified of the details of such.

2) It provides those users with the added advantage of maintaining their work while deleting mine, when all I attempted to do in the first place was work amiably from the start. These people deleted my information right from the start; while I initially permitted their information to remain despite its potential for copyright infringement.

3) It does not address the copyright violation itself; thereby opening up the door for the same type of negligent action by those users once the cool-off period terminates.

As such, I believe it may be necessary for you to refer this complaint to a Wikipedia Copyright Specialist for his review.

Thank you.

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of a copyright in an idea is invalid: (1) ideas cannot be copyrighted; (2) this notion of using repeated bisection to approach the trisection in the limit is immediately obvious to anyone with a modest ability in mathematics. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE....

I am most certainly not claiming a copyright for an idea sir-- That allegation is preposterous. What I have made available is an APPROACH for trisection. The 1995 copyright represents the first time on official record that "negative factor" geometric progression represents a true analogous solution to the trisection problem. And that, most certainly IS NOT OBVIOUS! Prior to that research, the statement that iterative trisection could solve the problem was not sufficient because means for incorporating direction had to be determined. So, in conclusion -- before an APPROACH is determined, no one can make a statement as to the results. The real factor here is that what is presented on Wikipedia's seventh heading on the trisection webpage was just added today an IS IN VIOLATION TO THAT COPYRIGHT....

It is not only the ideas which can not be copyrighted. In mathematics, methods, theorems, proofs, algorithms, ... can not be copyrighted. In our case a copyright violation may occur only if a part of your text would be copied verbatim. This is not the case. Thus there is no copyright violation. If you want to protect your method, there is one method and only one: to publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. However, I doubt that your result would be considered as new by the reviewers, and, in my opinion, your article will be rejected. D.Lazard (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I appreciate your communication.

However, I do disagree:

You see, there is direct infringement on that copyright. The idea of repetitive bisection needs an approach in order to be connected with trisection. That seventh heading is the only visible information on the whole world wide web which attempts to connect the two and is a copyright infringement.... I attempted to mollify the situation and retain other potentially related information under that heading. But, as you can see, that simply deteriorated into some sort of Edit Warring enterprise....

Angle trisection

The material you are adding degrades the quality of the section (your material is less clear both mathematically and grammatically and suffers from strange and unhelpful formatting) and is an obvious and bizarre attempt at self-promotion. Knock it off. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP your edit war. If not, you will be blocked to edit. If the copyright violation you mention in your edit summary is real, you have expalin it in the talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the page which apparently contains copyrighted material, and there's nothing in there that merits it. I worked out exactly the same construction when I was six. It would be more profitable if you were to find an improved way of squaring the circle - you'd get far more respect if you were to achieve that. --Matt Westwood 19:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE

Well, thank you for finally opening up a line of communication on this subject -- that is refreshing.

A couple of comments:

1) First, It's not up to you to make determination on what information may obtain a copyright. That decision is left for the United States copyright office. And, in 1995 they determined that such information, as was presented, DID merit a U.S. copyright.

2) Since you're now in grad. school and you could have worked out a solution when you were six years old -- that's about when the copyright was awarded. So, you had your chance but failed to use it.

3) Have you yet reviewed the proof I referenced to you?

FYI I graduated 30 years ago. I have not referenced the proof, I printed it out and wiped myself with it. As for the US copyright law, it's worth even less than that. --Matt Westwood 19:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes

Please read these; they will help prevent you from being blocked from editing here.

The idea that the current wording of that section of angle trisection is a copyright violation, and that your version somehow fixed it, is bizarre. You do not have a solid rationale for your version.
Please do not revert anyone on that page anymore, or I will block you from editing. You are edit warring, and have significantly exceeded the three revert rule.
Please be careful how you word things; your post at WP:ANI could be interpreted as a legal threat, even if that was not your intention.
You can't copyright an idea. Especially one that existed long before 1995.
Please don't source anything else to www.truescans.com. It is not a reliable source.

Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments at the top of this page, and am concerned that you don't plan on changing your ways here. So I just want to make sure I've been crystal clear: If you resume any of these things again once your block expires, I'll block you indefinitely. Furthermore, I note that in the past, you've used Special:Contributions/WIKI-1-PIDEA, Special:Contributions/66.91.237.221, and Special:Contributions/Ronready2go to add the same material to various articles. This is against our policy of sockpuppetry, and will also result in a block if it continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you for providing a cool-off period to resolve this problem. I am writing because your approach, although being fast, however, leaves three stones unturned:

1) It does not accommodate for a "speedy deletion" of information last placed under the seventh heading entitled By infinite repetition of bisection located on the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisection, though, which remains in violation of United States copyright TXu 636 519. This is because reported users last deleted my corrections/updates and still refused to acknowledge a potential COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT after being notified of the details of such.

2) It provides those users with the added advantage of maintaining their work while deleting mine, when all I attempted to do in the first place was work amiably from the start. These people deleted my information right from the start; while I initially permitted their information to remain despite its potential for copyright infringement.

3) It does not address the copyright violation itself; thereby opening up the door for the same type of negligent action by those users once the cool-off period terminates.

As such, I believe it may be necessary for you to refer this complaint to a Wikipedia Copyright Specialist for his review.

Thank you.

WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)"

Now, there is a new creator who has added information to the seventh heading of Wikipedia's "Trisection" webpage - entitled, By infinite repetition of bisection. This also offers a direct line copyright infringement by the phrase "1/3 = 1/2-1/4+1/8-1/16+.." (ref. truescans.com/trisection.htm).

Lastly, the other user who was blocked apologized for his inappropriate actions, thereby confessing responsibility for the block in the first place. WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |decline=You are blocked for edit warring. This request does not address the reason for your block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

Firstly there is no copyright on mathematical methods, nor even patents or trademarks or anything else. And I don't think anyone has copied anybodys words there.

Secondly angle trisection by repeated bisection does not satisfy the constraints of straightedge and compass construction.

And thirdly and perhaps you might take this on board, loads of people have done this before. For instance on page 140 of 'Excursions in Geometry' by C Stanley Ogilby from 1969 which by my reckoning is before 1995. And well before that there's page 64 in Gradations in Euclid by Henry Green in 1858. And I'm sure there's even earlier. Now could you please stop edit warring trying to stick your stuff into the article thanks.Dmcq (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being able to edit collaboratively, posting inappropriate material after being told it was inappropriate, disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to say this politely, but your responses here and on my talk page simply don't make any sense; you're repeating the same odd statements that you have been making since this started. Since you also re-posted the material to the article after many people explained why it was not appropriate, I have blocked you indefinitely to prevent further disruption. You might be able to be unblocked if you can use the unblock template to convince another admin that you are going to be able to follow our rules. Noting your past history of using multiple accounts, I also want to remind you that using another account to continue this editing will result in more reverts and blocks, without the chance to be unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE....

By first being made clearly aware of the facts which govern this case, then by ignoring my questions, and lastly by blocking me in rebuttal, I am sure you understand that you have only served to abet a previously claimed copyright infringement -- Obviously, this now extends my copyright concerns to Wikipedia itself!

So, I guess we'll just have to follow through with this your way -- the difficult way!

So, for starters, since the ball is clearly in my court, from the nature of your feedback, which I've recorded, it appears necessary that my input needs to be interpreted to you by others so that you begin to gain a very clear understanding of its implications. I guess I'll just have to go through a medium which your "block" doesn't accommodate

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).

Sc7n2T4v6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

URL Location

Affected Wikipedia Webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisection

Seventh Heading Down entitled: By infinite repetition of bisection

Copyright Link

http://truescans.com/index-Trisection.htm

History

1) On March 29th, I attempted to load reference to my copyrighted information. This information was deleted many, many times

2) Both myself and primary user who deleted my work were BLOCKED for one day

3) User apologized stating he was not familiar with policy and was reinstated.

4) Concurrently, I was written up by Wikipedia Administrator Floquenbeam for many alleged violations the most salient of which consisted of:

      a) Attempting to edit information using both of my user accounts, rather than just one -- Apologized to Floquenbeam on this stating I was unaware and it would not re-occur.
      b) Referencing to an un-reliable website -- I wrote back to Floquenbeam indicating that website was batting 100% with respect to Wikipedia people that were referenced to it.
      c) Trying to add my reference more than three times within a 24 hour interval of time.

5) I wrote to the Administrator who had blocked me for the one day that there were problems which should be corrected -- No feedback rendered.

6) After block duration had terminated, rather than re-edit, I asked Floquenbeam to look into matter for me in order that I would not be blocked again.

7 In response Floquenbeam Blocked me indefinitely!

8) I have noted that there appears to be unfair action by Floquenbeam as follows:

      a) He permitted new copyright violation material to be added; whereby;  I asked him why that site (ref. http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/trisect.htm) was considered to be more reliable than the link above -- no response given 
     b) He appeared to be over-zealous right from the start -- i.e; exhibiting his power.  For example, he explained that if I didn't quit abuse (ref. item 4a above), he would Block me indefinitely.  This seemed to be a bit severe for the type of abuse rendered; especially when considering that I was totally unknowing and still am not quite sure of why it's an abuse in the first place since both accounts were legally active.

9) I made Floquenbeam completely aware that my allogation is that a copyright violation had occurred. When he blocked me he indicated that he had failed to comprehend the nature of this. I offered to make the infringed information directly available to him via any format which he deemed adequate -- no response.

So, in closing, I cannot edit the above referenced information because I am currently blocked. I allege that such listed information appears exactly the same as in my copyright. What could be easier to understand than that fact.

Secondly, the above referenced link provides a valuable service to Wikipedia. It is offered to give Wikipedia unparalleled credibility by means of publishing impacting historical literature pages from very rare antique books that merit "news value" even today. This has worked very well in concert with Wikipedia users. As it stands, no reason has yet been given as to why the link is believed to be un-reliable; so I would ask to have that link also reinstated.

Lastly, the View History of the affected webpage in addition to my user talk page at WIKI-1-PIDEA give very clear supporting details to the nature of my complaint including United States Copyright number(s) and relevant date, etc.

IN CONCLUSION, I ask to be unblocked for an indefinite period of time because my actions have been totally truthful, whereby I attempted to make Wikipedia aware of a very serious potential copyright infringement with not so much as a single query as to the detailed nature of the unlawful phrasing

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.

If, on the other hand, you are going to continue to make the same lengthy claims, you can take it up here. —DoRD (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2012 (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've read through all this, and I'm afraid this makes little sense. Ignore the rest of the problems here: could you please be very specific on why you feel there is a copyright violation on the page as it exists? I do not see any repetition of text; are you claiming some kind of "trade secret" which prevents discussion of the methodology described? Kuru (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this request is very confusing, but for some background you might want to see AN/I, User talk:Floquenbeam and Angle trisection. This editor has large amounts of text about their complaint, but as far as anyone can tell, there is no clear, concise explanation of what they feel is a copyright violation. —DoRD (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2012 (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).

Sc7n2T4v6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block no longer is necessary because I understand that I did not edit collaboratively; will not do it again, and will make productive contributions instead WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline because your current username is not allowed under current the username policy, and also the username policy at the time of your block. Before your unblock request can be considered you will need to choose a name in line with our current username policy through Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Please note that even after changing your name you will not be guaranteed an unblock. This will depend on the circumstances of the block which I have not examined. Typically if there are good contributions from you, and your behavior was not particularly egregious, and you have not been active for a long time, and you can convince us that you will be productive and not disruptive we can extend the standard offer. I recommend you read the text of this offer and after renaming make your request based on that information. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:42, 24 June 2021 (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.

{{unblock reviewed|1=The block no longer is necessary because I understand that I did not edit collaboratively. I will not do it again, and will make productive contributions instead.

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).

Sc7n2T4v6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block no longer is necessary because I understand that I did not edit collaboratively. I will not do it again, and will make productive contributions instead.

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. Yamla (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2021 (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).

Sc7n2T4v6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that great strides can be achieved when people work constructively with one another. Conversely, an argumentative approach which remains unchecked very easily could gain the potential to erode such progress. As a safeguard, Wikipedia administrators do a very good job at monitoring situations in order to mitigate intrusive attempts which might tend to obstruct. Since Wikipedia's base of contributors constitutes one of the largest of its kind ever have been assembled, it remains very important to preserve such type of harmony within the organization. As such, in keeping with the objective of maintaining an accord within the Wikipedia organization, I welcome the opportunity to again contribute after so long an absence; whereby if I were now to become unblocked, I would remain committed to assuring that a productive synergy continues in effect, and that any unwanted outbursts no longer would take place.

Decline reason:

You have again not addressed the reasons for your block. Please describe how your editing was non constructive and how you would instead edit constructively. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2021 (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).

Sc7n2T4v6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just found out that Wikipedia's website address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sc7n2T4v6 indicates that I do not have a user page. Therein, any attempt to create one can't be achieved, given the reason that I am blocked. So, with that said, how can this page even exist? Is that the reason why I received no response to my request to unblock (see above)?

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. You may ask questions without using the {{unblock}} formatting. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 23:19, 11 July 2021 (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 just found out that Wikipedia's website address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sc7n2T4v6 indicates that I do not have a user page. Therein, any attempt to create one can't be achieved, given the reason that I am blocked. So, with that said, how can this page even exist? In other words, is that page in conflict with this page, and is that the reason why I received no response to my request to unblock (ref. above outstanding unblock request); or is it simply that your response takes time to evaluate?

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).

Sc7n2T4v6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

During early 2012, I wrongly adopted an offensive, argumentative tone. As a result, my insensitivity towards the viewpoints of others contributed to the escalation of a series of rather divisive discussions. Such incident furthermore became exacerbated by my not sticking to straightforward, uncontroversial facts; thereby eventually warranting the involvement of Wikipedia administrators who had to spend their valuable time in order to sort things out. During such episode, I also failed to provide input from a single IP address. In order to rectify, I no longer shall be a party to so-called “edit warring” or “sockpuppetry” activities; nor shall I fabricate any criticisms which potentially might prove to be damaging to either Wikipedia or its contributors. Information which I intend to provide shall be factual, as well as original; thereby minimizing the chance to cause duress in the future. I also shall conduct myself in a manner so as not to instigate any new petty arguments which might tend to involve Wikipedia administrators; thereby drawing away from the precious time which they need in order to attend to more serious matters.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2021 (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 accepted the request.

Sc7n2T4v6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block no longer is necessary because I understand that I was blocked for: (1) Belaboring mathematical discussions; (2) Behaving in a manner which could be construed to be insensitive to the viewpoints of others; and (3) Providing edits from more than a single IP source. Furthermore, if unblocked on Wikipedia, you have my assurance that I no longer would engage in any of such types of activities; instead only partaking in factual, productive contributions. Additionally, I apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused during these events.

Accept reason:

See the comments below from me and Floquenbeam. It is not at all clear to me from your latest unblock request whether you really do understand why you became blocked, but I am willing to give you a chance. However, please bear in mind that any return of the kinds of problems that occurred before is likely to result in a restoration of the block, with a much lower chance of ever being unblocked again, so you need to be careful. In view of previous problems don't edit again about trisection, and I recommend keeping away from mathematics and anything related to copyright altogether. JBW (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: This is your block, though it dates from over nine years ago, so I won't be surprised if you no longer either remember it or care about it. However, any comment you would like to make will be welcome. My thoughts on this are as follows. On the one hand, the editor has accepted the behavioural problems which led both to the block and to several declines of block requests. On the other hand, I am not sure that unblocking would be useful, as there seem to be serious failures to understand, both in connection with what can and can't be subject to copyright and in connection with mathematical ideas. However, in nine years people can change considerably, and my inclination is to give the editor another chance, on the understanding that continuation of similar problems would lead to reblocking, though of course all concerned would hope that wouldn't be necessary. Any thoughts? JBW (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Thanks for the ping, I wasn't aware they had requested an unblock multiple times recently. Yes, this situation is a kind of purgatory, and we should deal with it one way or another. The problem is, this should go one of two ways:

Unblocking makes sense if they were a kid 9 years ago. Kids grow up.
Unblocking doesn't really make sense if they were an adult 9 years ago, relentlessly focused on a seriously non-mainstream idea.

Their edits from back then make me think they weren't a kid. At the risk of being too direct, they seriously believed they had copyrighted a specific approach to trisecting an angle that had been around for a long time. They would not listen to other people. They had a difficult time being clear about what they were talking about. They treated everyone as an enemy dumber than them. It has been my experience that adults don't grow out of this approach.

However, since I might be wrong, I am more than happy to defer to you. If you think it's worth a shot, I'd suggest a topic ban from trisecting an angle. And a short leash; returning to previous behaviors should be dealt with promptly, perhaps with one final warning and then an indef block with talk page access removed.

If you decide not to unblock, I think it might be a kindness to remove talk page access, to prevent further unblock requests. But again, I am happy to defer to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Universelle

The article Galerie Universelle, which you created, is not suitable in its present form, for at least the following reasons.

It is written as a personal essay or reflection, with comments from the author, whereas Wikipedia articles should be written in a neutral, dispassionate, way, without expressing any kind of opinions or judgments. For example, "Perhaps the most appealing quality..." expresses a judgment as to what is "appealing", and likewise "such signature series stands as a testament to the history of the time" expresses a judgment or opinion.
The content of the article is not supported by references to reliable sources. The one cited source is about portraits of Van Dyke, and although it mentions Galerie Universelle, it does so only passingly, and does not support any significant amount of the content of the Wikipedia article. In fact, all that it tells us about Galerie Universelle is that it "appears to be a portrait series, but was not published as a book", and that it included a portrait of Van Dyke.

In its present state the article might well be deleted. However, in order to give it a chance of avoiding deletion, I have moved it to Draft:Galerie Universelle. You may like to edit it there, to make it suitable to be an article. If you do so, I strongly recommend that when you have done so you submit it as an article for deletion, so that it can be reviewed by an experienced reviewer, rather than moving it back to mainspace yourself, to reduce the risk of moving it back only to see it deleted.

Although you have had an account for almost ten years, the amount of editing you have done is fairly small, and my 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. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. JBW (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your recommendation to withhold comments which could be considered to be personally reflective, I removed them from my input.

As to your concern about my need to become more experienced before submitting my own articles, I weighed that against the fact that I now am way past retirement age; and thought that by keeping my input objective, concise, and supporting it with references to reliable sources, I might be able to use the little time which I have left to create memorable articles; especially in light of the fact that I appreciate receiving your guidance on such matters.

AfC notification: Draft:Galerie Universelle has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Galerie Universelle. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hoary for the heads up. Rather than correct the faulty reference, it was better to delete it instead because the association of Ducarme's St. Jean to Da Vinci's also appears right on the linked scan itself.

Nomination of Antoine Bara Blaisot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antoine Bara Blaisot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Bara Blaisot until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Vexations (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Galerie Universelle (May 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 Cerebellum was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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:Galerie Universelle 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:Galerie Universelle, 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.

Cerebellum (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sc7n2T4v6! 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! Cerebellum (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Galerie Universelle

Hello, Sc7n2T4v6. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Galerie Universelle, 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) 02:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]