Sdgwilson

Your submission at Articles for creation: Independent Social Research Foundation (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Independent Social Research Foundation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Independent Social Research Foundation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• 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.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sdgwilson! 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! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Independent Social Research Foundation

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 Draft:Independent Social Research Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.isrf.org/funding-opportunities/grant-competitions/#ECF. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright, notability and conflict of interest

Thank you for your interest in creating an article for Draft:Independent Social Research Foundation on Wikipedia. There are multiple problems with your submission. You cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights.

The second problem is notability. I am not sure the organization you are writing about is notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, to have an article. We require write-ups in reliable third party sources such as newspapers, magazines, or online publishers to establish notability. New articles about persons or organizations that are not notable are typically deleted.

The third problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organization or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view.

If you'd like to use the copyrighted content in an article, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission on how to obtain the proper licensing. If you are the copyright holder, refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how to grant us permission to use your content. Alternatively, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. However you would then still have to abide by the conflict of interest guideline, and even so, there is a likelihood that the article may be deleted due to lack of notability. 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).

I'm sorry this message could not be more favourable. If you have any questions, you can leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hello, Sdgwilson. 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 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. – Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please unblock, this is not a productive or efficient way of discussing the issues, or allowing me to respond to comments...

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The page I am creating is a work in progress. I asked for it to be undeleted so that I could make modifications and/or grant permissions such that content from the ISRF website could be reproduced on the wiki page. However, no sooner was it undeleted, I was then indefinitely blocked so that I could not make any changes! This 'guilty until proven innocent' approach is so wasteful of time and effort. I am very aware of issues around subjectivity and bias - I would be interested if you could point out a non-objective statement in the draft I was working on? Whilst I acknowledge the Conflict of Interest, such COI's are not unmanageable. I have experience in writing objectively and without assigning undue values to neutral statements, which is what is required on Wikipedia generally, but especially in cases where there is a COI. I have disclosed my COI. The article is not intended as 'advertising, publicising, or promoting' - it is to provide information, in the same way that pages exist for similar organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Leverhulme Trust, the Wellcome Trust, the The British Academy etc.. Indefinitely blocking me has made it impossible for me to add further secondary sources (though I note that one reviewer said that all the sources were primary, whereas I had already added one secondary source and there are more to come), including mentions of the foundation in the Times Higher Education publication and elsewhere. Sdgwilson (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The issue is more that your draft was almost entirely composed of copyright violations from your organization's website. "Providing information" is considered promotional here; you don't have to be actively selling something. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about topics that are notable as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself. In this case, notability is defined at WP:ORG. Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field. Please read other stuff exists. Similar organizations meriting articles does not automatically mean yours does too. Each article is judged on its own merits. Being unblocked will involve you agreeing to not directly edit about your organization. If you want to write about topics that are outside of your conflict of interest, please tell what those might be in another unblock request; I am declining this one. If you want to respond to comments, you may do that on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2019 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Fyrther to the above. If you could undelete and leave it as an unpublished draft, I could update and add many more secondary sources, and then you could make a judgement based on the full information. I hadn't completed the page, and there is more that I knew needed to be done to meet Wiki standards. I didn't, however, expect the work in progress to be deleted and any attempts to update the work to be blocked. Sdgwilson (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As discussed copyright violations cannot be restored. PhilKnight (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2019 (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.

Someone else will review this block. However, we cannot allow copyright violations to stand for legal reasons. This is why it was deleted and will not be restored. Your Foundation would need to license the content with a license compatible with Wikipedia and its purpose; they may not want to give up their rights to it. I wouldn't, if I were them. Furthermore, original text is preferred even without copyright/legal issues. As I stated, it's unlikely you will be unblocked without you agreeing to not edit about your organization and telling what it is you will edit about instead- but that will be up to the next reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

We'll, as I've said somewhere earlier in this, I can either issue the permissions for reproduction of content or - more likely - edit the text in the article such that is not just a reproduction of what's on the website. But I can't do that if I'm blocked and the page isn't undelete and returned to draft form so that I can actually make the edits that have been suggested! I'm happy to be judged on the objectives city - or otherwise - of the page once it's finished, but it's a bit much being judged on it when it's in-progress, and when I can't even take on board and incorporate people's suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdgwilson (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Pages that were deleted as copyright violations cannot and will not be restored, on the grounds that (1) if the editor needs the text that bad they can just go to the source they lifted it from and (2) that would make Wikipedia outright liable for copyright infringement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, (1) you forget all the formatting, links layout etc., and (2) not of I either give the consent for the text to be reproduced from the ISRF website or - as I've made repeatedly clear would be the more likely course of action - rewritten the text so that it is 'original'. I'm not asking for the page to be made live, but for me to be unblocked and the page returned to draft so that I might actually attempt to satisfy the requirements that have been set out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdgwilson (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Block modified

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

– Athaenara ✉ 21:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #23886 was submitted on Feb 04, 2019 08:17:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)