User talk:World of Input

Your submission at Articles for creation: CELBAN (November 16)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Some of the sections in this article are unsourced. Please see Wikipedia's guide to citing sources.

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:CELBAN 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.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CELBANPrep Publishing! 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! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
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; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, 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.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

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|reason=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. Alexf^(talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alex, for reviewing my article.

While it may appear to be advertizing or promotion, it is not. I have zero affiliation with the CELBAN, which is owned by CCLB, and administrated by the CELBAN Centre, a subsiduary of Touchstone Institute. I do not know anyone at these organizations. Nor am I getting paid to write anything. As such there is no conflict of interest. And there are zero intentions to share my account.

The CELBAN is an exam akin to the CELPIP (Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program), which are based in the CLB (Canadian Language Benchmarks). It is an exam created in 2004 by Red River College for Internationally Educated Nurses to get licensed in Canada. When I started the article, I was informed that one had been created previously, but that it had been abandoned. So I started afresh only to discover that many of the terms used in Canada in reference to the CLB are not included in Wikipedia: so there is a body of knowledge that is missing here, to the detriment to nurses seeking licensure and employment in Canada.

I have a BSc and an MEd, so I know how to write in may styles and formats and can certainly create unbiased articles on topics no one else seems to know about when it comes to the Canadian Language Benchmarks and potentially other Canadian terms, concepts, etc.

I did get a message from Uhai about the name. I swiftly replied, "When choosing a name, they were all taken. When I used the Global account name search I saw several other business type names, so I created this one. I just requested the name change adding my name before CELBANPrep Publishing. Thanks for catching that!"

When it comes to the name I chose to open this account, I had problems because all of them were taken. When I used the look-up, Global account information (Special:CentralAuth) as suggested. I typed in "A" and saw 3 A & A businesses. I typed in "B" and saw 5 more. So I was like, "Ok, I can use CELBANPrep Publishing."

My name change was rejected. "The request to rename "CELBANPrep Publishing" to "World of Input" could not be completed.

Note from the declining user: There's more to your block than just the username. Your account has also been used for advertising and/or promotion. Please deal with the problem through an unblock request on your user talk page according to the instructions given. (Se the message posted by Alexf on 01:57 hrs, 16 November 2023 (UTC).)

I attempted the name change the way you suggested. I don't know if I did it correctly. There is nothing there to show that I did.

I appreciate what you do for Wikipedia, however, assumptions were made. I hope that I have been able to clarify them.

CELBANPrep Publishing (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the instructions in the block notice above to request an unblock where you both propose a new username for your account and address the concerns regarding your account being used for advertising or promotion. Uhai (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Uhai. I attempted so many things, last night. I could not figure out how to follow the instructions. With your prompting I made another attempt, and now I see and understand how it works. I appreciate you taking the time to guide me! :) CELBANPrep Publishing (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uhai, I just wanted to add a note to you, thanking you for your patience, kindness, guidance, and direction. I felt welcomed and informed by your response. Thank you for being a human being on the other side of this computer, adding humanity to the learning process I began. CELBANPrep Publishing (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just wrote a detailed appeal request and it disappeared. This is my second attempt of a clean slate appeal. :There are three assumptions when it comes to the block on my account due to the user name I chose: :1. There is a relationship between the CELBAN and CELBANPrep Publishing. :2. There is a Conflict of Interest in the article I wrote about the CELBAN. :3. The CELBAN is not notable. :1. The CELBAN and CELBANPrep :The CELBAN and CELBANPrep are two distinct entities. The CELBAN (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=CELBAN&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1) is an exam created and funded by the Canadian government for employment and immigration purposes. It is owned by the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, administered by Touchstone Institute, and their services provided by the CELBAN Centre. :CELBANPrep Publishing, on the other hand, creates grass-roots resources founded in the experiences of Internationally Educated Nurses and the CLB. None of the material created by CELBANPrep Publishing is based on any content that originates from either Touchstone Institute of the CELBAN Centre. As such the two are distinct and independent entities. Funding, knowledge, and compensation of any kind is NOT interchanged. There is not even an informal or unpaid association, relationship, or affiliation. There is no partnership, contract, relationship, or otherwise between the two entities. :2. Conflict of Interest :It has been assumed that because of the user name I chose, in error that has been explained, there is a conflict of interest when it comes to the article I wrote about the CELBAN. :In the same vein as above, I have zero interest in promoting or advertising the CELBAN or the CELBAN Centre. There is no need to do so. The 15+ provincial colleges of nursing, and word of mouth, do that quite well. :I am not an employee, intern, contractor of the Canadian Government, the CCLB, Touchstone Institute, or the CELBAN Centre. As such, I was not promoting or publicizing anything. (Why would I do for free what others get paid or compensation highly to do?) :When I wrote this article I did not write about, " [my]self, family, friends, clients, employers, or [my] financial and other relationships." there is zero: WP:COI, WP:PAID, WP:PCD, WP:DISCLOSEPAY, WP:PAYDISCLOSE. :Furthermore, as a volunteer who did some open-source graphic design for CELBANPrep Publishing: I did not receive any payment or compensation nor is there any forthcoming. I was not asked to write this piece. My interest was piqued when I learned about the CELBAN. I saw articles on the CLB and CELPIP. Seeing a gap when it comes to the CELBAN, I sought to fill it. :3. The Notability of the CELBAN :The CELBAN like the CELPIP and the CLB are notable and valuable additions to both the WP:CANADA and WP:LING projects. :The conceptual framework of the CELBAN is the CLB, the Canadian Language Benchmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Language_Benchmarks. This Wiki page cites the CELBAN and CELPIP as two Examples of CLB assessments. There is a page for the CLB and the CELPIP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_English_Language_Proficiency_Index_Program, and while attempts have been made, there is none for the CELBAN. However, all three are part of both the WP:CANADA project and the WP:LING project. : There are problems I seek to address with these pages: :=> a. On May 2021 it was determined that, "This [CLB] article needs editing to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please help improve the content." I intend on learning the style guide and applying the necessary edits. :=> b. The content assessment scales for both pages are Start Pages: meaning they require more substance. :=> c. In addition, both pages are rated low on the importance page. :The reason for this is because of the lack of more internal links to pages about linguistic concepts embedded in the CLB. these topics include but are not limited to the following: * pragmatic knowledge, * grammatical knowledge, * textual knowledge, * functional knowledge, and * sociolinguistic knowledge. :These terms are listed in the second paragraph, last sentence, of the CLB article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Language_Benchmarks. :By creating these pages/articles, internal links can be added to increase the value of these articles and the credibility of Wikipedia. Doing so will consequently improve the notability of the CELBAN. This is one intent I have in becoming an editor for Wikipedia. _____ :It is important to note that the CELPIP went under similar scrutiny as my article on the CELBAN because it is Canadian and not known outside of our nation. On the CELPIP talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_English_Language_Proficiency_Index_Program), it acknowledges, "This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep." I am certain that the questions that arose had to do with the notability of the CELPIP, and the question around whether the primary sources were independent or not. (Was it based on original research?) The author would have substantiated that the CELPIP is founded on the conceptual framework of the CLB, which is a Canadian government-funded project owned by the CCLB. The CELBAN is no different on these grounds. While both the CELBAN and CELPIP are used for employment and immigration purposes in Canada, the difference between the CELPIP and the CELBAN is that the CELBAN is administrated by Touchstone Institute and front-lined by the CELBAN Centre. The CELPIP has a different administrator. ____ :Again, the Canadian Language Benchmark, the CLB, and CELPIP are part of the WP:CANADA and WP:LING programs, which is where the CELBAN would be as well. :4. Going Forward: :I will: * continue to avoid editing or creating anything about myself, my family, my friends, my colleagues, my company (if I had one), my organization (if I am affiliated with one), or my clients (if I have any and they are notable). This includes my competitors. * learn correct syntax and formatting for links. (I found this challenging.) * use links that are :reliable and :independent sources. I will avoid links that are: bare links, videos, WP:ADS, WP:BOOKSPAM, WP:SPAMBAIT, WP:REFSPAM, and WP:CITESPAM, WP:BROCHURE, WP:ADMASQ, WP:SPAMPAGE, WP:ARTSPAM etc. * use inline citations and internal links. * use the reference section for references. * avoid adding links to my signature.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam :In effect, I will: * continue to do my best to comply with all of Wikipedia's content policies by studying them thoroughly before I edit or publish anything. * continue in good faith, and NOT include links to my own sites. :Please note, as evidence, in writing this appeal I am neither engaged in WP:SOCK or WP:EVADE. :As I am only interested in writing articles as a volunteer, I will NOT accept payment or compensation of any kind to write or edit articles on behalf of friends, family, collegues, clients, or organizations. I am not here to "[promote] products, services, web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or memes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion CELBANPrep Publishing (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As I said before, concisely and clearly describe what you did to get blocked, what you would do instead, and what non promotional, constructive edits you would make. It is unlikely you will be unblocked to edit about anything with which you have a conflict of interest or about anything you have written about promotionally. Like Alexf said, two sentences. And please. No more of this "You said" nonsense, like this is a deposition or something. We know what was said by whom. It's right here on the page. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2024 (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 renamed you. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

No one will willingly read the massive WP:WALLOFTEXT you've persistently posted, compete with quotes of what others wrote. Please concisely and clearly describe what you did to get blocked, what you would do instead, and what non promotional, constructive edits you would make. It is unlikely you will be unblocked to edit about anything with which you have a conflict of interest or about anything you have written about promotionally. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf: This is hard to wade through, but is it OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: No. His name at the time of block was User:CELBANPrep Publishing (see filter log). Now he claims no connection to the company. Massive wall of text will not help this case. I am not convinced user plans to contribute to other subjects constructively, but continue advertising with COI. User must explain in two sentences the reasoning,. At this moment I would not agree to unblock. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf: I knew that WP:WALLOFTEXT was too big to make sense of. At least for me. @World of Input: A week ago I left a note asking you to concisely and clearly describe what you did to get blocked, what you would do instead, and what non promotional, constructive edits you would make. It is unlikely you will be unblocked to edit about anything with which you have a conflict of interest or about anything you have written about promotionally. My first thought was to decline this out-of-hand. I was right. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]