Francisco533
Welcome! edit
Hello, Francisco533, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The Conspiracy of Blood, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of The Conspiracy of Blood edit
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 The Conspiracy of Blood requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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. McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest edit
Hello, Francisco533. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
- instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Your article Coleção Os Mosqueteiros edit
Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Coleção Os Mosqueteiros to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Francisco533 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I simply add some information about a book (IT'S NOT A SELF PUBLISHED WORK). It was published by Coolbooks (seal of PORTO EDITORA),one of the most renowned editor houses in Portugal. This is a new project published by them, not a self published work. This is a collection for young readers in wich RICHELIEU is the main character! So I add this to the section PORTRAYALS IN FICTION This, if I'm not mistaken is fiction!!! If there are some people who don't like it it is ok but they have to respect. It's an interesting project and deals with historic facts about this person (RICHELIEU)and centers in his youth. There are no reference names to the author so this is not a promotion or spam. It's information about the portrayal of this person in fiction works published by STANDARD PUBLISHING HOUSES NOT SELF PUBLISHED WORK. So, if you delete this you also have to delete Peter Capaldi and the others. It's not trivia and it's in the right place : Portrayals in fiction I don't understand it and I was blocked because I tried to explain why I want to add this to this category. If I put it in other section like EARLY LIFE, ok, I understand it but it is in the right place! And another thing is to delete the name of an actor who portrayed Richelieu in 3 different versions. One of them is Fairbanks' Iron Mask, one of the best adaptations with musketeers' illustrator Maurice Leloir as consultant.
Decline reason:
Your unblock request makes no attempt whatever to address the reason for the block, which is that you have attempted to use Wikipedia to publicise or promote a book. I have no idea why you should think that telling us such facts as that the book is not self-published, that it is published by a "renowned editor house", and that it is "an interesting project" means that your editing can't have been promotional: it is perfectly possible to promote, advertise, or publicise a book on "an interesting project" published by a major publisher. (Indeed, books published by major publishers are advertised and promoted all the time.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:24, 22 November 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.
Francisco533 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I add information about a book in the page about CARDINAL RICHELIEU - Portrayals in fiction. It was deleted because the administrator said that it's a self-published book. It's not. I was using the same arguments he used to deleted it. I tried to explain and I continued to add the information. I'm not even the author. The info is just something like this: "A young Richelieu is the main character of the 2016 juvenile swashbuckler book "The conspiracy of blood". The book exists and is about RICHELIEU when he was young. It is also a portrayal in fiction and he is the main character. I was blocked for trying to update this info several times. Please help. I'm not promoting nothing. I'm trying to add a book that is a portrayal in fiction of this person (RICHELIEU).Francisco533 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We can't unblock you if your intention is to continue exactly the same behavior that led to the block. Please, make new unblock request, but be sure to address concerns laid down by JamesBWatson below. Also, be sure to read WP:GAB before you make new unblock request. What you were doing is considered WP:promotion by Wikipedia standards, so if you want your appeal to be successful, you have to convince us that you will not be making any promotional edits if unblocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:18, 23 November 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.
_____________ Please read the rest of the text ok. Don't just use one sentence to justify that. I was adding info to a page. It is what Wikipedia is for. Don't do that it's not fair and you know it but you're not going to admit it.
Problem here: I WANT TO ADD NEW INFO TO THE PAGE. PEOPLE DELETED IT OVER FALSE REASOSN (SAID I WAS PROMOTING WORK AND IT WAS SELF-PUBLSIHED BOOK). IT'S NOT SELF-PUBLISHED WORK. IT'S INFORMATION ABOUT PORTRAYALS IN FICTION ABOUT THIS PERSON (RICHELIEU). IT'S SIMPLE. DON'T TWIST MY WORDS.Francisco533 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)}}
- It is clear that you do not fully understand the situation, so I will try to clarify things a little. I hope this helps you.
- It is true that one editor said that he thought that your book was self-published, but that editor was not the administrator who blocked you, nor one of the administrators who deleted the articles you created. Neither the reason for the block nor the reasons for the deletions were anything to do with the suggestion that the book was self-published. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to post an unblock which deals with the reason for the block, not with other comments that individual editors have made but which have no connection to the block.
- One of the articles you created was deleted because you asked for it to be deleted, by posting {{db-author}} in the article. The other was deleted because you removed all the content from the article, which was taken as indicating that you wanted it deleted. It is possible that they would sooner or later have been deleted for other reasons, but the actual reason they were deleted was that you indicated that you wanted them deleted.
- You were clearly and unambiguously editing for the purpose of publicising a book: i.e. with the purpose of making it known to more people. That is what is referred to as "promotion", and that is why you were blocked. Unless you address that fact, you are unlikely to be unblocked: posting unblock requests about anything other than that is very unlikely to get you unblocked.
- Above, you say "I'm not even the author", but previously, in the page Talk:The Conspiracy of Blood, referring to that book you said that it was your work. That is confusing, and makes it difficult to know what to think. However, it doesn't make any difference to the reason for the block, because editing to publicise or promote a book is equally unacceptable, whether you are the author or not.
- Although what you say is not entirely clear, it seems that one of the views you are trying to express is that other "portrayals in fiction" are listed, and so it must be acceptable to list this one too. However, Wikipedia does not give equal treatment to all subjects: if a subject has received substantial coverage in numerous significant sources, then it is likely to be considered suitable for inclusion, whereas a new book which has so far not received a lot of attention is not. You have repeatedly, both on this page and elsewhere, stated that "the book exists", as though merely existing were sufficient reason for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but it isn't. I exist, but I am nowhere near significant enough to be included in a Wikipedia article.
- I have spent some time drafting and editing this message, to try to help you to better understand the reason for the block and the reasons why your current unblock request is unlikely to succeed. I hope what I have said is some help to you. I also suggest that if you have not already taken the advice above to read the guide to appealing blocks, then you should do so, as several of the points it mentions are relevant to how you might compose an unblock request which is more likely to succeed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info. I won't bother again.