User talk:Gcpt79

Welcome!

Hello, GinoCosme, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page LGBT psychology, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorials
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"proof of occupation purposes"

Sorry, we try not to reveal too much about ourselves, and "proof of occupation purposes,' is really beyond the scope of editing Wikipedia. And out of scope for your WP:USERPAGE. Right now it looks promotional, so you should trim out almost all of that. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been posting links to your website. On Wikipedia, that is considered spamming. Please see WP:REFSPAM. Please do not do this. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get that now. Honest error which wo t happen again. The mistakes we (I) make being new to this. Again, sincere apologies. GinoCosme (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:GinoCosme

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:GinoCosme requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages 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 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is an honest summary of who I am and was needed to submit an article. There appears to be no violation of policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GinoCosme (talk • contribs)

Your userpage is not an article, nor a workspace for an article in progress. The draft article space or your user sandbox are more appropriate places to work on articles not yet ready for publication. A userpage is meant to be a brief page about you as a Wikipedia editor - your interests and goals here, and any disclosures of conflict of interest or paid editing. The userpage guidelines go into detail about what is and is not considered acceptable content.

You should also be aware that we highly discourage people from writing mainspace encyclopedia articles about themselves, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Wikipedia only accepts articles about notable topics, and a person is rarely capable of being an objective judge of their own notability. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:

When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just to add some clarification, your text was mostly either unsourced or sourced to stuff you had written yourself, not independent third-party sources, and referring to "Gino" throughout suggests that you are confusing this encyclopaedia with social media Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gino, you should never write about yourself. If you were important, someone else would write about you. This isn't Facebook or LinkedIn. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since we should not use our real names, etc. how do I change my username? I see everyone uses a username that is non identifying. Apologies - I just can’t seem to find out where to do this. GinoCosme (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHU. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the time you spent clarifying this for me. GinoCosme (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow, how to show off your power. Instead of helping a newcomer understand what he did wrong and learn that it’s not allowed to write about self - which I did. It know - you block him. And let me guess / read the guidelines. Well, if it were user friendly maybe I would but nothings here is easy to understand. and to think I was planning on donating.

sometimes a little help goes a long way to a self inflated power trip.

very disappointing GinoCosme (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad we've dissuaded you from donating. The people who own the servers take in $35M a year and they always ignore us volunteers. Yes, we enjoy what little power we can exercise on this website. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2022 (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).

Gcpt79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

wow, how to show off your power. Instead of helping a newcomer understand what he did wrong and learn that it’s not allowed to write about self - which I did not know. I did nothing intentionally to go against the guide led. But instead - you block me. And let me guess / read the guidelines. Well, if it were user friendly maybe I would but nothings here is easy to understand. and to think I was planning on donating. :sometimes a little help goes a long way to a self inflated power trip. :very disappointing. GinoCosme (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 21:38, 23 September 2022 (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).

Gcpt79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

again, I did not know there was a protocol to follow, but slowly we learn. I do understand why I was blocked. No self promotion or writing about self. Only contribute to existing or new content that is not about self, is factual, and adds value. I do not plan to promote myself or my work (or fiend or family) since it would not be biased. Truthfully, I did not intentionally want to cause any issues and apologize for same. I think I’m getting it now - how this wiki:site works and will try spend some time researching how to be a better contributor/user. Hopefully there’s a concise how to and guidelines website that I can read. Anyway, again, my apologies. Sincerely. GinoCosme (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is an new user tutorial to use, which you can once unblocked. I think you may just need to tell us what topics you want to edit about. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2022 (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.

.

Just for the record, this edit was enough to justify the block as it involved adding an external link with the same name as your username. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Hi Daniel. Yes, that was the first edit I did on Wikipedia and it was an honest mistake stover I was not aware of the guidelines. It was an honest mistake which I believe was corrected by a moderator.[reply]

I did not know there was a protocol to follow, but slowly we learn. I do understand why I was blocked. No self promotion or writing about self. Only contribute to existing or new content that is not about self, is factual, and adds value. I do not plan to promote myself or my work (or fiend or family) since it would not be biased. Truthfully, I did not intentionally want to cause any issues and apologize for same. I think I’m getting it now - how this wiki:site works and will try spend some time researching how to be a better contributor/user. Hopefully there’s a concise how to and guidelines website that I can read. Again, sincere apologies. GinoCosme (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed this unblock request to a comment. There's already an open unblock request above - and there is no reason to open multiple requests. SQL ^{Query Me!} 16:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]