User talk:Soleboy303

This is Soleboy303'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: School of Health and Related Research (January 18)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Whispering was: This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Has no references unable to establish notability without any references.

Whispering^(t) 20:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scharrlib! 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! Whispering^(t) 20:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Scharrlib. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:School of Health and Related Research, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:School of Health and Related Research has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:School of Health and Related Research. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not objective

In addition to being required to declare PAID, and the draft having no references, and the need for content to be based on what people independent from the school have written about the school, these are words and phrases that are not objective nor neutral point of view: is recognised for its world-class research, provides a wide range of research, teaching and consultancy, brought together expertise, distinctive, traditional quadrangle design, impressive, There are many important historical connections to the site, As befits this strong industrial heritage of the city, come to be an important practice and recording venue. Take all this out, and for that matter the entire Building section as not relevant, and then and only then, see if you can find other people who have written about the school. For a start. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Scharrlib! You created a thread called Creation of a new page - rejection at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of School of Health and Related Research

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 School of Health and Related Research, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two problems with this account: 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 or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, 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 a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

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.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page.

Deb (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

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).

Soleboy303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please could I have my account unblocked so that I can retrieve my entry as it has received a speedy delete. I believe the speedy delete was unjust and would have liked more feedback on my article which had responded to previous guidance inside of Wikipedia from a Wikimedian and within the site. I was told the entry would never go live as it was abot a department, when it is a school and other school's are included from Sheffield - whilst there are examples of departments within Wikipedia that are no different to that of ScHARR for content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Archaeology_at_the_University_of_York If anything it would be useful to get back all of the text and hard work I put into this entry. Many thanks. I hope I have created this request properly, apologies if not

Decline reason:

This does not address your violations of WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Yamla (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2019 (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.

Unblock request

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).

Soleboy303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To contribute entries to Wikipedia in the field of health researchScharrlib (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reply to 331dot in over a week. Please make a new request when you have the time available to engage with us. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:01, 17 November 2019 (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 would like Wikipedia editors to consider unblocking this account which I set up earlier this year to contribute firstly an entry on the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR).

The block was put in place due to this entry being seen as advertising or promotional about a University School at The University of Sheffield. I failed to disclose that I am a paid member of University staff but was not paid for as this entry was used as a first attempt at creating a Wikipedia entry and one that I felt was missing. I work in the Library and Open Access field and am keen to help disseminate evidence based knowledge and looking to also edit links to research that may not be currently Open Access, with additional Open Access links within the references of various topics.

The ScHARR entry is worthy of Wikipedia and falls in line with other University Schools, including hose at Sheffield, that have their own entries. My entry was driven by being an alumni of Sheffield (twice) and long time member of staff who knows much about the School and its contribution to health science. I apologise for not announcing that conflict of interest, which I didn't realise at the time through lack of understanding.

I asked User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) for guidance about avoiding promotional language and how to avoid breaking further Wikipedia rules as a new editor on the platform. Richard was very helpful and supportive as to this as a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia.

Just chiming in to confirm that I'm helping this editor learn the ropes. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scharrlib, you will still need to propose a new username, but I'd be willing to consider unblocking if Richard Nevell (WMUK) is willing to continue guiding you and you agree to comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID(which you must do as a university employee even if you aren't specifically paid for your edits); though I do not speak for the other admins who have posted here. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Soleboy303 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

agreement to adhere Wikipedia rules around WP: COI and WP: PAID Scharrlib (talk) 1:54 pm, 21 January 2020, Tuesday (21 days ago) (UTC+0) I would like Wikipedia editors to consider unblocking this account which I set up earlier this year to contribute firstly an entry on the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR). As previously iscussed I have guidance from Wikimedian Richard Nevell. I also have a different account (not the first one I set up) which I'm not sure is easier to use than place a request for a name change, whilst blocked via Global Renamers. Please advise. My other account was set up to attend a Wikipedia editathon at Leeds University - the name is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tatman303 I asked User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) for guidance about avoiding promotional language and how to avoid breaking further Wikipedia rules as a new editor on the platform. Richard was very helpful and supportive as to this as a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia. You can see the conversation above, and I'm sorry that I didn't respond in the week after 331dot helpful reply. Please advise whether to start working on a new contribution via my Tatman303 profile - or whether I try and get scharrlib changed via the username change process. Many thanks --Scharrlib (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the discussions with 331dot, yourself and Nevell, unblocking on the following criteria:

You'll make a name change request before doing anything else. They've suggested "soleboy303", which seems fine and isn't currently used.
Editor will be limited to a single account for editing, without use of alternate accounts. The standard requirement for paid editors to use a registered account (rather than an IP address) apply. This can be appealed after 6 months (11/08/20 onwards).
Soleboy303 will work actively with Nevell to ensure your extremely strict compliance with our paid editing rules and standard prohibitions against non-neutral language. I particularly suggest both that you make some non-field edits to practise and that you have him look over your first few suggested edits before your formally request they be made. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the formatting of your request; please click "edit" instead of "new section" which introduces unnecessary formatting. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else will review your request; however I did need to block your other account, as blocks are on the individual, not the account. You will need to get this resolved before you can use another account. Whether you want to rename this account or use your other account is up to you, but you will need to address the reasons for the block on this account first. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As before, I confirm that I'll help Scharrlib along. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I'm still learning and doing my best. I read that you can have two Wikipedia accounts - but wanted to know if It is permissible? The Scharrlib (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC) account was to generate content and update Open Access links to research in my areas of work. The personal account was purely set up to attend a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at a UK University, and to contribute content and references that included personal interests. If I had one account unblocked then I would suggest it was the Tatman303. Thanks and apologies for the mistakes. Scharrlib (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin I'd have been happy enough to unblock with the above aid of Nevell, however I wanted to call the attention of @331dot: to the two account aspect above. I'm inclined to think that this was not a malicious sock use, so it wouldn't stop me from unblocking, but wanted to draw your attention to it both on whether it changed your general viewpoint, and thoughts as to unblocking one/both. I'm inclined to unblock just the one for now, and if all's fine for six months, reauthorise secondary accounts at that point. @Deb:, as the originally blocking admin, pinging to see if you have any specific objection to me unblocking at least one account. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion(as noted above) is unchanged- I'm happy with your judgement on this. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object to unblocking but I would consider this to be very much this contributor's last chance. A university employee ought really to have known better or at least been able to figure it out. Deb (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Conditions

@Scharrlib and Richard Nevell (WMUK):, Scharrlib, from the above I'm now happy to unblock you on the following provisos:

You will be limited to a single account for editing, without use of alternate accounts. The standard requirement for paid editors to use a registered account (rather than an IP address) apply This can be appealed after 6 months.
You will work actively with Nevell to ensure your extremely strict compliance with our paid editing rules and standard prohibitions against non-neutral language. I particularly suggest both that you make some non-field edits to practise and that you have him look over your first few suggested edits before your formally request they be made.

It's very rare indeed for someone who breached our Paid disclosure rules to successfully appeal, and to not lose the ability to make even requested edits in the COI field as a condition of unblocking. As Deb has said, please do make sure to consider this a last chance. If in doubt, play it safe.

Please provide/confirm a suitable amended username and your willingness to comply with the above conditions. Once that's done, I'll renname and then unblock you. I'll also drop a note on the still blocked account about this discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thank you for you time and consideration - I can confirm that the second account was not set up as a way to divert the first block and not a sock puppet - it was for the reasons stated earlier to contribute as part of a Wikipedia Editathon - so thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I acknowledge that the personal Wikipedia account will remain blocked for at least 6 months at which I time I will consider an appeal. I will work with @Richard Nevell (WMUK): and compliance with our paid editing rules and standard prohibitions against non-neutral language. The new username is to be soleboy303. Scharrlib (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Thank you for your help, and I'll be sure to work with soleboy303 and help them learn about Wikipedia policies. Soleboy303, once your account has been renamed let's get cracking and set you up a user page. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scharrlib: - in order to save some time and let you get to it, I've unblocked you. Before doing anything else, can you submit your name request (i've linked to the right place in the accepted unblock). While I've said before editing anything else, obviously if you're struggling with the name change, feel free to ask me or 331dot. Best of luck with your editing - please feel free to drop me any questions you may have. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thank you for doing this and for the offer of guidance should I get stuck going forward, which no doubt I will have a few questions as I go forward working also with *@Richard Nevell (WMUK): I have requested the new username, so will await that change. Thanks again. Scharrlib (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: School of Health and Related Research (April 5)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks for this draft, but looking at the guidelines for Notability for universities, there is a good chance that if this article was published, it would be deleted for lack of notability. There are very few Schools of ... of universities that have demonstrated enough notability for a separate article in wikipedia. See the advice in Wikipedia:College and university article advice#Faculties and academic colleges. You could include some or most of this draft into the University of Sheffield article, if you take care to note yourconflict of interest on the talk page and in your edit summary. To demonstrate the notability for a separate article, the article would need to cite enough independent secondary sources that are specifically about the school. This would exclude articles that cite experts from the school, anything published by any part of the University of Sheffield, and any primary sources. The references in this version of the article are Booker et al - not independent, Question at the house of commons - primary, Prof Strong profile - not independent, REF2021 establishes the REF score, but is not about the School as it is a general listing of REF scores, Brazier & Dixon - not independent, news-medical.net is not about the school. I haven't completed the list, but hopefully this demonstrates the sorts of references that would not establish notability.

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:School of Health and Related Research 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.

Newystats (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your frustration that the University of Sheffield's School of Health has not been able to get a separate page up given that Info science, Medicine and Management have. Looking at those, I would guess that a request for deletion of those pages would also be successful. All the Sheffield Schools pages should probably folded into just one page for the University.Newystats (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this very comprehensive and helpful reply. I think given there were other Sheffield school's and that other universities which have school entries, that I was under impression we could have an entry. As you have clearly stated, we would still need further external evidence and citations and that would not guarantee success. Given that, it seems prudent to perhaps give up on this endeavour rather than invest more time and energy for the entry to be deleted.

Many thanks for taking the time to review this entry. Soleboy303 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:School of Health and Related Research

Hello, Soleboy303. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:School of Health and Related Research, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library. It organised by @Jonathan Deamer.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you've attended a Wikipedia event in Leeds in the last five years, this was either one I ran or attended.

If you're interested and you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Hope to see you there.

Lajmmoore (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]