Trutholivas

Trutholivas, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Trutholivas! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote businesses, such as you did in the article User:Trutholivas/sandbox/The RuthWrap ‎. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. If you want to list a company for potential customers to find, please consider alternative outlets. Thank you. Calton | Talk 10:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Circumspacial Pressure

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 Circumspacial Pressure, 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, product, group, service or person 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 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. Calton | Talk 10:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Final warning

I've just finished cleaning up a great deal of material you wrote pushing "RuthWrap" and the like. We do not tolerate advertising or promotion of any kind. You may not have known that before writing all that, but you do now. Should you once again push such material all over the place, you will be blocked from editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

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

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

---

Request reason:

I apologize. I did not realize that wikipedia did not promote businesses or products. I now understand this rule, as reflected by my latest revision and corrected (very edited) version of the article Draft:Circumspacial Pressure. Now that I am aware of this, in all future articles I may post on wikipedia, I will be very cautious and mindful to avoid any semblance of advertising or promoting my or any brand, business or company on wikipedia. Period. For advertising, I will utilize other online sources and places to promote my organization and products. Notwithstanding, the neologism and coinage of the scientific genre such as my initial article "circumspacial pressure", appears to be in keeping with being an encyclopedia. There are other places for me to publish scholarly scientific articles about my work and products. If you would be so kind as to re-read the "corrected"(severely edited) version of my Draft:Circumspacial Pressure, you may find that this version rises to the level of wikipedia's standards. I am fairly confident that my article may now be of the caliber that wikipedia allows. If I am wrong and my "corrected" version does not meet with your approval and should you choose to block me anyhow, I will accept that decision.

Accept reason:

As you've agreed to the terms of the unblock (no further promotion of circumspatial pressure or related topics), I've unblocked your account accordingly. I'll put a message below to help get you started with some links to the basics. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So, here's the deal. You did write a "revised version". It's still promoting and pushing this concept of "circumspatial pressure". From the draft you wrote: "Circumspacial Pressure is a newly coined phrase...". That's our first problem. Wikipedia isn't here to publish neologisms or original research. "Many Famous physicists, scientists, mathemeticians who referred to CSP (although the phrase did not exist when they sought to define it)." Uh, no. You don't get to put words in people's mouth to make your new concept look credible. "These well-known definitions support the existence and science of CSP:" According to whom? The only thing you cite is other articles, which are not appropriate references. When it comes to subjects like that, Wikipedia follows, never leads. In order for this to become an appropriate article topic, it would need to first be covered by reliable sources, such as reputable, peer-reviewed science journals. After that happens, we could write an article about it, using those journal articles and the like as references. I'm willing to unblock you, but you'll need to agree to refrain entirely from writing about "circumspatial pressure" and anything reasonably related to it until and unless you can show that appropriate references exist to write an article about it, and use acceptable, reliable references for anything else you write, not other articles. Would you be willing to accept those terms? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've actually just had a read of the deleted draft, and I have to say it's pseudoscientific nonsense from start to finish. And that's the better version - the stuff about Einstein in the original was mindbogglingly wrong (the claim that he thought gravity was a combination of magnetism and atmospheric pressure is total... well, I can't think of a polite word to describe it). This is crackpottery at its finest, and there is no room on Wikipedia for it. For the record, I have no objection to an unblock providing we don't see any more of this kind of stuff - if we do, a new block won't be far away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

I agree to your terms. I am a new writer and not published. I knew it was a risk to use new, unsupported loosely-woven, but connected information. In fact, I had hoped that other knowledgeable people in the fields I have touched upon in my article on circumspacial pressure, would jump in and help me to refine my article, as I see they have done on most articles. I do not claim to be an expert in these scientific fields, only attempting to connect dots to related and integrated interconnected fields of science and research and how they help humanity through education an understanding of basic scientific principles. I realized that my hasty, unrefined entry-level article opened me up for a "smack down" rejection. In the future, I will not request it be made public unless and until it is Wiki-approved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutholivas (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The big problem is that it was entirely the wrong kind of article for an encyclopedia. You say you were producing "unsupported loosely-woven, but connected information" and "attempting to connect dots to related and integrated interconnected fields of science and research". But that's original research (see WP:OR) and synthesis (see WP:SYNTH), and is absolutely not what an encyclopedia is for. Wikipedia reflects the current state of knowledge and does not try to advance it, and only carries content that is already covered by reliable sources. It should not contain a single original thought by any of its contributors, or any connecting of any dots that have not already been connected. If you want to be unblocked, you will need to understand and accept this - and giving us an idea of what you would do if unblocked would help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and please sign your talk page comments by appending four tildes ("~~~~"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Trutholivas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)