User talk:AdamBr06

This is AdamBr06'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: William Hanson (April 9)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, William Hanson (Etiquette Expert), which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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:William Hanson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdamBr06! 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! TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:William Hanson (author) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Hanson (author). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:William Hanson (author) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Hanson (author). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Hanson (author) (April 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NP83 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:William Hanson (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

NP83 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Hanson (author) (April 29)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The vast majority of the sources are profiles on websites that Hanson is associated with. These are not independent sources. Similarly, there are a couple interview sources, which are considered primary. Some of the sources are not reliable. For instance, The Daily Mail and The History Channel are explicitly cited at RSP as unreliable. The BBC article is an archived article from 2008 that doesn't indicate who the author was, which makes me think it falls under user-generated content. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:William Hanson (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

TipsyElephant (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:William Hanson[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:William Hanson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. GPL93 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:JayA990 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JayA990. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

AdamBr06 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The claim my account is an alternate account of ‘JayA990’ is false and unjustified - this is my only Wikipedia user account. I understand inconsistencies in the editing of an article re: William Hanson (Author); particularly one instance where they copied and pasted a response I made following a question by user ‘TipsyElephant’ (15:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)) - though I have no relationship, neither personal nor professional, to the article’s subject, nor do I have any connection, personally or professionally, with the user JayA990, and this is not an alternate account of this user. I am willing to co-operate to attempt to rectify this error.

Decline reason:

I suspect based on the SPI that this is more meat puppetry than sock puppetry, but it is treated the same. Please explain in a new request how you came to edit about the same obscure topic as a blocked user. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 24 May 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.

Unblock[edit]

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).

AdamBr06 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The article subject has gained popularity as a result of increasing media presence, and the increasing media presence of his podcast co-presenter in British television. My aim was not to act not to create promotional material for the subject, rather to create a Wikipedia page for a relatively high-profile celebrity in the UK. I again re-affirm I have no connection to the subject or any other contributor.

Decline reason:

Given this and this, I don't believe you. Yamla (talk) 19:50, 31 May 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 does not actually deal with the reason for the block.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was in response to the previous comment AdamBr06 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]