User talk:Cp braga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcus Lyon (June 25)[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 Robertsky was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
in-line citation required. also remove external links in body content please.
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.
– robertsky (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Theglassworksuk! Having an article 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! – robertsky (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcus Lyon (July 28)[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 Bkissin was:
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:
As is expected with a COI draft, there is some puffery that needs to be removed (though not as much as similar articles). Lyon is notable per WP:NARTIST and should be good to accept soon.
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.
Bkissin (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcus Lyon (July 31)[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 Cerebellum was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Very close to being acceptable, there are just a couple problematic phrases to remove: "His early years were much influenced by time spent observing the artistic community built by Alan Caiger-Smith at the Aldermaston Pottery" (unless there is a source for this claim); "where he led turn-around work to refocus the organisations."; "exhibitions that study nominated groups of social change agents" (sounds like something you'd find in a press release, maybe use "people" instead of "social change agents").
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.
Cerebellum (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcus Lyon has been accepted[edit]

Marcus Lyon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Lyon moved to draftspace[edit]

Since you have a WP:COI regarding Marcus Lyon you are expected to submit it for review by an independent editor through the Articles for Creation process. I've moved it to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title). You can submit it using the AfC template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

  • Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
  • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
  • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm an individual person and I'm not representing any organisation. I'm not being paid to publish articles on Wikipedia. I understand the reason why you have blocked my account. I might have a conflict of interest regarding the article Marcus Lyon, once I know who he is - as I have already declared on my User Page, but again I'm not receiving any compensation to write this. Marcus Lyon is a public person who has a well know career with publications, exhibitions and awards all over the world. Everything I've written is true and it can be found online. The article is based on facts, it's not a piece of advertising or promotion. I appreciate your attention and once my account is unblocked I hope to be able to contribute to other articles, especially in the photography and arts areas, my main expertise.

Decline reason:

Via off-wiki evidence, I have determined your connection is closer than you have so far admitted. Until you come clean as to the exact, specific nature of your professional relationship and conflict of interest, there's no path forward. Yamla (talk) 12:40, 21 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Yamla, thank you for your reply. I understand your point, however as I've already submitted the article a few times and it has been reviewed by different users, so I believed the content was already impartial. In case it is still not enough, I'm happy to edit and submit for a new review. I know Marcus Lyon and I've publicly mentioned that in my user page as it was required. I did not lie about that, how I imagine many people normally do. And I believe even though I know the person who I'm writing about, I can still publish an article about them, correct? I'm not using this as an advertisement as it was mentioned here before. Could you please help me to improve that article in a way that is acceptable according to Wikipedia's rules? All the information added in the article can be proved by external links. If there's anything you believe it's inappropriate, please let me know, and I will be happy to remove it. Thank you again. Best.

Decline reason:

This isn't a matter of your "knowing" the person. This is a matter of an ongoing, long-term professional relationship. It's no big deal; there's a way for this artist to have a Wikipedia article. But it's not appropriate for someone in such a relationship to write the article. And it's necessary for you -- not us -- to explain what the relationship is, so other editors will be able to consider your recommendations with full information. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:56, 21 September 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.

If you are unwilling to explain the exact, specific nature of your professional relationship, this is probably the end of the line. --Yamla (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Yamla, I've worked with Marcus before as a freelancer for specific projects, so that's how we know each other. Again, I believe that's not an impediment to writing an article about someone, especially if we say right from the beginning that we publicly have a conflict of interest, and we provide true information with external links to prove everything that was written. I've already made edits after some reviews from other Wikipedia volunteers, who very politely asked me to adjust some of the words. If there's anything else that you find that might sound like this is promoting Marcus Lyon instead of giving facts about his career, I'm happy to edit once more. Thank you, all the best.

Decline reason:

To be unblocked you will need to address each the three bullet-points (Disclose ..., Convince ..., Describe ...) in the message I left you on 16 September (the first of several dirty orange templates above). You will also need to respond in transparent detail to the request from Yamla above. While you're at it, you might like to explain why, if you have such a tenuous connection to Lyon, you chose to edit under the name of a company of which he is a director. This is an absolute requirement: if you aren't prepared to do those things, your account will remain blocked. You will in any case not be unblocked if your only purpose in Wikipedia is promotion – that is not tolerated here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 21 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, as mentioned before, I've worked with Marcus as a freelancer assisting and supporting his projects on a few occasions. I admire him as an artist and I believe his work is inspiring. I've decided to write this article on my own because I truly believe he deserves to have a Wikipedia page where people can access a bit of his work - and I totally agree that this should be an imparcial writing, so I really appreciated all the comments and edit suggestions I've received since the first time I've submitted the article a few months ago. With that in mind, before writing, I've accessed the Wiki profiles of other photographers to see how I should add the information and that's how I've put everything together, adding links to prove the publications, exhibitions and awards. I've also asked for a friend to revise my text before submitting it. I used the email address from the glassworks as this is an email address I still have access to (working as a freelancer for the studio, I maintained that email in case I work with him again or if I need to reply to someone from a previous project, it's just easier. Please note this is a small studio, not a big company, so that's something common). I believed that it would make sense to use that email here as I would be writing about Marcus, so I could keep that separated among my other freelance jobs. Also, as I knew I would have to ask for his permission to use the images that I've selected for the article, I just thought it would be easier... Clearly, I was wrong, I can see that now, and for that I'm sorry. I didn't want to cause all that trouble. I do have the intent to write about other people I know who have relevant work in the Arts, so I probably should create a different account with a personal email...correct? Again, I just wanted to share Marcus' work with the world on this platform, because it's such an inspiring social impact art (you can see that if you click on the links of the article) that I honestly believe in. I don't think Wikipedia is a space to promote or to advertise any company or person, so I appreciate the work you are doing as I normally go to Wikipedia myself to look for information about a lot of things, so it's really comforting to know that the approvals are taken very seriously. I hope I've replied to everything you and Yamla asked, if not, please let me know if you still need any other information. Thanks.

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) 10:36, 24 October 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.

Note to other admins: I'm not prepared to unblock on this basis – the request addresses essentially none of the specific pre-conditions outlined above by Yamla, by Jpgordon and by me. No objection if anyone wants to unblock under suitable restrictions. Cp braga, I strongly suggest that you revise the text in the blue template above to actually address – directly, concisely and clearly – the concerns we have expressed. Please do not make any new unblock request, as you may lose access to this page if you do. Please understand once and for all that you will not under any circumstances be unblocked to continue your promotion of Lyon – we just do not care how wonderful you may think he is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: What about a WP:DSTOPICS restriction (BLP clause) restricting edits relating to Lyon? I haven't dealt with DS much, but I think that that would be a "valid" restriction that could be imposed based on my interpretation of the wording. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:CONDUNBLOCK covers this. If Cp braga agrees to not edit relating to Lyon, that would also suffice under WP:Ban authority. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, as above, I've no objection to an unblock here under suitable restrictions, so do please do whatever you think best. Before giving any consideration to lifting the block, I personally would want to see some recognition of what was wrong with the previous edits and some indication of what edits the user might wish to make, neither of which is satisfactorily addressed in the request above. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor thank you. Happy to help regardless the decision. Best! Cp braga (talk)

globally renamed Theglassworksuk to Cp braga[edit]

globally renamed Theglassworksuk to Cp braga --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cp braga, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cp braga. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cp_braga&oldid=1063037954"