Mark wood 1

This is Mark wood 1'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: sandbox (September 8)

Latest comment: 16 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

This submission has been declined for one or more of the following reasons:

It is primarily designed to threaten, disparage or attack its subject.
It is a biography of a living person that is unreferenced and entirely negative in tone.
It is a page that is purely vandalistic in nature.

This page meets one or more of the general criteria for speedy deletion and may be deleted without notice. Users who continue to create inappropriate pages will be blocked from editing 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 User:Betterforscience/sandbox 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Betterforscience! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 2024

Latest comment: 16 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I did not intend for the page to be perceived as an attack, and I apologize if it came across that way. My goal was to document the allegations and controversies surrounding Damien Charles Weber in a factual and neutral manner, citing reliable sources.

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies, especially regarding neutrality and biographies of living persons. I will review the content and revise the language to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on maintaining a balanced and non-disparaging tone. I am open to collaborating on any changes necessary to bring the page into compliance.

Thank you for your guidance, and I look forward to resolving this issue constructively. Betterforscience (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not you intended this draft, including the associated caricature drawing, as a personal attack, only you can know for certain. However, putting that aside, you say you wrote this "citing reliable sources". Your references are listed as follows:

"The Paul Scherrer Rules," For Better Science, March 25, 2024. Link
"Streit um Autorenschaft am PSI," Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 2024. Link

I'm aware that the Neue Zürcher Zeitung is a reliable source, but the way the citation is constructed not only tells us nothing about its contents, it also makes it borderline impossible to verify the source, as you don't even provide a date, let alone a link to the article which presumably is online. As for the first source, this is even more opaque.

For future purposes, if you wish to write any article on a living person, your referencing (using inline citations, and only referring to reliable published sources) must be beyond reproach, for the reasons enumerated at WP:BLP. If you make any sort of extraordinary statements, especially negative ones, your referencing needs to be, correspondingly, extraordinarily solid.

Articles must also be written in a neutral, unbiased manner, which this draft certainly wasn't.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your detailed feedback. I appreciate your guidance on the importance of neutral tone and rigorous citation, particularly in articles about living persons under Wikipedia’s BLP policy.

Regarding the sources, I would like to clarify that the referenced article from Neue Zürcher Zeitung can be found at the following link: https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/wissenschaft-streit-um-autorenschaft-am-psi-ld.1839985. I understand the need to include more detailed citation information such as publication dates, and I will ensure this is corrected moving forward.

For the For Better Science article, which is the second reference, you can access the full text, including attached documents related to the allegations. This article contains supporting documents that further corroborate the claims.

I will work on ensuring that the referencing is both more transparent and compliant with Wikipedia’s standards. I also acknowledge the need for neutrality and will revisit the language to present the information in a more balanced way, adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thanks again for your insights, and I’m committed to improving the article accordingly. Betterforscience (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked indefinitely

Latest comment: 16 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account has been blocked from editing because your username gives the impression that the account represents a group, club, organization, company, or website. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have chosen a new username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable, regardless of the username that you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects.

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change to this account.

To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page (this page): {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Important items to note:

The new username that you choose must represent you as an individual person, and it must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.
The new username you choose cannot already be taken and used by another account. You can search here to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns, "There is no global account for [username]", that means it is available.
Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".

Appeals: If your username does not represent a group, organization, website, or other entity described above, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page (this page): {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mark wood 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Mark wood 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Thank you for your message and for explaining the reason behind the block on my account. I understand the concerns regarding my username, and I apologize for any confusion it may have caused. My intention was not to represent a group or organization but to contribute as an individual.

I would like to request a username change to comply with Wikipedia’s username policy. Please change my username to: Mark_wood.

I am fully committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines, including avoiding any conflict of interest and ensuring that my contributions are neutral and non-promotional. I appreciate your guidance and will make sure my future edits align with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I look forward to continuing my contributions under a more suitable username. Betterforscience (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Accept reason:

I have renamed and unblocked your account. You should read and follow the advice of WP:COI and WP:PAID. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That username is taken. Please pick another. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mark_wood_1 2601:647:5A00:4150:9CA9:CD6:EA86:2187 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That works. PhilKnight (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic