User talk:DNMBeljaars
Speedy deletion nomination of Welfare Quality[edit]
Hello DNMBeljaars,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Welfare Quality for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
–Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Contested deletion[edit]
- Copied by Athaenara from the talk page of the deleted article.
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because this is a multi-institutional, multidisciplinary, multicountry research project, it does not sell anything, it is not an idea, person or product that I want people to buy into. It is neither implicitly nor explicitly aimed at such activities. It only explains the research project and the choices made within it, it does leverage persuasive language. This makes it inherently encyclopedic in my view. I set up the Wikipedia page as an archive of the project and to provide information relevant for farmers, animal welfare groups, and anyone else who wants to know more about particular research endeavours in animal welfare. This also makes this page beyond the topic of animal welfare to which it was redirected immediately after I published it. Please indicate what makes it promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNMBeljaars (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'll have a go at this, although probably you'll learn more by reading the relevant Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOT PROMOTION and links from there. This particular article is heavily based on primary sources, lightly reworded, which inevitably lends a self-promotional tone to the wording. Use of the registered trademark symbol throughout the article just screams promotional, and simply isn't done within Wikipedia. You didn't help yourself by copying blocks of text unchanged from the Welfare Quality website, something which is very much not allowed as it infringes copyright, and even if it was public-domain text would be WP:PLAGIARISM. I suspect you have further antagonised several editors by repeatedly reverting without discussing (WP:BRD). Lastly and without wishing to bite the newbies, when the first and only action of a new user is to create a large complex article, heavily copied from primary sources, about a borderline notable subject, it is always going to attract close attention. Lithopsian (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Athaenara ✉ 07:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Unblock[edit]
DNMBeljaars (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wrote my Welfare Quality text from scratch as I was commisioned to write a Wikipedia page on the project by the project leaders. If the text on their website is the same, it is because *they* utilised *my* text (and reworded this slightly). I can get in touch with them on this matter if you think this helps. Professor Mara Miele was my second PhD supervisor and she commisioned me. That also explains why I wrote one large complex article. I am not here to police and edit Wikipedia articles, just to get information out on the Welfare Quality project. My expertise only goes so far and I feel I cannot write multiple pages, nor do I have the time or inclination for this. The use of the trademark in the Welfare Qualiry isn't a great decision, I see that and would change it if I am unblocked. Also, I have undone some edits from others because I thought that that was simply the way it worked, as litterally 1.5 hours after I published the page that I had written on for a month(!) was redirected onto Animal Welfare without them notifying me or explaining why they did this. This is very strange, and I'm wondering if they had read my entire article. Not having any experience with this, I only found out last Saturday that my page had effectively been erased after a 90 minute lifespan(!) Considering the democratisation of knowledge, I do not understand how blocking me helps this endeavour and I am miffed by the whole process and the way I am treated. If I get the chance, I'll work on Welfare Quality to make it read less promotional and more encyclopedic. Please reconsider blocking me?
Decline reason:
This statement: I am not here to police and edit Wikipedia articles, just to get information out on the Welfare Quality project basically sums up the reason you are blocked. Wikipedia is not a venue for "getting the word out". If you aren't here to help build an encyclopedia, then this block is totally appropriate. Yunshui 雲水 08:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
DNMBeljaars (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I very much regret that your (Yunshui) response does not engage with the reasons listed for unblocking my account. How is new knowledge on Wikipedia created other than through new pages about new topics written by the people who know about these new topics? My expertise only goes so far and I do what I can. How does that not count for contributing to building an encyclopedia? I see there is a lot of work to do on compulsivity and compulsion - which is my expertise, but I cannot devote time to build a page if it is being omitted within hours or I get chucked from Wikipedia. I'm finding this very frustrating because I thought I would be able to use my expertise for the benefit of those with an interest, but instead I'm being made to explain myself to people on whose side I am.
Decline reason:
The problem is, you have a conflict of interest and have been violating our terms of use, as you've been engaged to promote a topic. Yamla (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
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[edit]
DNMBeljaars (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Yamla and others, Thanks for clarifying and being patient with me. This makes more sense to me. Thanks for responding. I'll report back to the Welfare Quality bunch and tell them a Wikipedia page is not what they should want. I regret not having thoroughly gone through the rules before embarking on making a page.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only, not an unblock request. If you need to make a simple statement, please do so without the unblock request formatting. If you would like to be unblocked, please make a new request. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
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.