|
Hi Voleares195! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for creating Matthew William Knowles, Voleares195!
Wikipedia editor WebCite just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello, Wikipedian. This message is to let you know the article you recently created has been reviewed. Happy editing!
To reply, leave a comment on WebCite's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi, I'm Jbhunley. Voleares195, thanks for creating Matthew William Knowles!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider returning to the article to address this issue.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Jbh Talk 14:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Voleares195. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Matthew William Knowles, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jbh Talk 14:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Matthew William Knowles
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 Matthew William Knowles, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Voleares195, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to
Draft:Matthew William Knowles has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 08:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello JJMC89 and thank you for your review of Draft:Matthew William Knowles. I have made further edits and have asked for and received permission to use the content in question. A WP:OTRS tag has been added to the page.
Draft:Matthew William Knowles referencing
You need to stop trying to use unreliable sources and fake references. baike.baidu.com, a wiki, is not a reliable source. Adding fake references (like using [[Draft:Matthew William Knowles#cite note-:0-4|[4]]]) is not acceptable. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to source: "美籍艺人马泰勇闯中国娱乐圈 外型帅气表现抢眼" [Dawn of Chinese-American artist Mattei]. Xinhua Entertainment. September 15, 2014. as being 'fake'? If not, what reference do you consider fake?
-- Voleares195 ( talk) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind - found the strange links you were referring to! Do you think it would be okay to add the Baike references as "additional resources"? Those for some of the programs are the broadcasts official pages. -- Voleares195 ( talk) 22:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew William Knowles (December 27)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matthew William Knowles and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Voleares195 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The Sockpuppet claim is completely erroneous. I have absolutely no affiliation with any prior wiki account, let alone SravaniChalla. Just because I chose to try my hand at wiki by selecting an article that had been previously published/deleted I have continually been under unwarranted scrutiny. Please restore my editing ability and remove this block. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Apart from the technical evidence, you also claim to be Matthew Knowles and SravaniChalla claims to act on behalf of Matthew Knowles. Given that you both created an article on Matthew Knowles, that's enough to establish WP:MEAT if not WP:SOCK. Combined with the other technical evidence, it's very, very clear the block is appropriate. Yamla ( talk) 20:11, 29 December 2016 (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.
Voleares195 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I created my account on October 11, 2016. This is the first and only Wiki account that I have. I have looked forward to this process. I decided to use Matthew William Knowles because this actor is having an amazing career. On December 2nd my account was flagged as a suspected sockpuppet. From the research I did, it appeared that this claim would automatically be disputed and found to be in error after a CheckUser proved (as it should have) that I only have one account and have no affiliation with SravaniChalla. Since, by definition, Sockpuppetry is "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" and since this is my only account, the claim should be dismissed. Since this claim and the finding of 'Possilikely' is the reason that my account has been blocked, I request again that the account be restored. Addressing the reason given for my prior request's decline "Apart from the technical evidence, you also claim to be Matthew Knowles and SravaniChalla claims to act on behalf of Matthew Knowles. Given that you both created an article on Matthew Knowles, that's enough to establish WP:MEAT if not WP:SOCK. Combined with the other technical evidence, it's very, very clear the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)" 1. According to the SPI ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kspellskarthik#Suspected_sockpuppets) there was only a finding of 'Possilikely' which by definition is not a definitive. In accordance with Wiki's policy of 'good faith' that in of itself should not qualify my account from being blocked. A CheckUser should have been enough to provide evidence that my account is not and has not ever been associated with any other. I can say that with absolute certainty, as I have stated above. This is the only Wiki account I have owned and the only Wiki account I have ever used. I do not feel that the claims are well considered. There is no 'Technical evidence' to support this claim. If there are other ways for me to proceed, please inform me so that I can dispute it. 2. The previous reviewed and a lot of other reviewers seem to be greatly troubled by the simple fact that the first article I chose to write was one that had been previously deleted (see Matthew Knowles (Actor)). I saw an opportunity to improve on the prior article and felt due to this person's status it should be completed without judgement based on past users. I used Matthew Knowles bio as the base for my posting and have consistently worked to improve it. However, these achievements have not been part of the review process. Moreover, the page is very strong now and this has little impact to help me with my effort. 3. The previous reviewer stated that I 'claim to be Matthew Knowles'. I have NEVER made that claim. I am not Mr. Knowles. Since starting the work on this article, I have asked for and received permission to use part of his existing biography from his website in this article. I even asked that he submit an email in accordance with the WP:Donating copyrighted materials policy. Once this happened, admittedly out of frustration and lack of experience, I posted this to I was supposed to add his email to my talk page. This has since been pointed out to me as something that I was not supposed to do. I was unaware and incorrect to make this post. I understand that my posting on my talk page was against policy now. I now understand this and apologize. 4. At a prior point in the creation and editing of my page, it has been called into question as to whether I was being paid to make this article, that I am Matthew William Knowles. I am not. I am a fan who believes and wishes to contribute to his work and experience as it should be of note to this forum. I hope that the above provides sufficient reason to reverse the decision of blocking my account. Please assist me to insure that the page strong enough to be removed as draft and to remove the speedy deletion of this page. I have worked hard to build this page. Please help with assistance and advice. If it is possible to enlist the help of other Wiki editors to improve the content, I would appreciate it. If there are other issues related to this, please inform me of them so that I can address them here. I would like to resolve misunderstandings and to finally dissuade others from the consideration that these claims against my efforts are true.
Decline reason:
Technical evidence isn't the end, the possilikely finding only suggests that behavioral evidence needs evaluation. The draft you created is largely a copy of the deleted article, the same problem with the images from the past, so this account is very likely linked to the older ones. Note that even if you aren't the same person but are multiple people working towards the same thing that isn't allowed either. Your recourse is to study the terms of WP:OFFER and wait an acceptable time before requesting an unblock. — Spaceman Spiff 06:18, 5 January 2017 (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.
- Please note that Wikipedia is not a 'forum'. It is an encyclopaedia. Peridon ( talk) 11:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
You state that you never claimed to be Matthew Knowles. The claim was made at File:MatthewWKnowles.jpg where you claim the author of the image is "Matthew W. Knowles", that the source is your own work (very specifically that you, Voleares195, are Matthew W. Knowles), and that you, the copyright holder, release it under the CC-by-sa-4.0 license. If you are indeed not Matthew Knowles, this is a serious issue, albeit one for Wikimedia Commons to deal with, rather than en.wikipedia. -- Yamla ( talk) 13:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- TO date I have done all that I can to communicate that I am a new editor to Wikipedia and very clearly admitted my efforts to learn in my attempt to create this page. The image upload credit to Author Matthew Knowles File:MatthewWKnowles.jpg, if considered wisely, is obviously the same rookie mistake. My most sincere apologies. I am happy to correct this mistake, remove the image or even to contact and asked Mr Knowles to authorize the copyright to this image as I did with his bio /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials.
Voleares195 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #17259 was submitted on Jan 03, 2017 22:41:11. This review is now closed.