User talk:Tbrennan0827: Difference between revisions

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

See WP:NBOOKS

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:Defying Hitler: A Memoir 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tbrennan0827! Having an article draft 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! KylieTastic (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless resubmit with no improvement

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:Defying Hitler: A Memoir 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s literally just material from the actual book what's a better or more in depth source than that? Tbrennan0827 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	@ above Xyzzzy123 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tbrennan0827. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Defying Hitler: A Memoir, 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) 16:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tbrennan0827. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Defying Hitler: A Memoir".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gruber Law Offices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly 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. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on David Gruber (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly 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. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. AusLondonder (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (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).

Tbrennan0827 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’m not gruber? What was I even banned for?

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) 10:50, 6 March 2024 (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.

Really, that's nice. You've been making spammy edits for a while. And you certainly were promoting Gruber. So "advertising" fits, even if it is not self promotion. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please adjust you unblock request accordingly. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which “spammy edits” are you referring to? You are going to need to be more precise than that if you want me to give a precise response. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don’t think my writing fit within “advertising” either. I did not say that he was a good guy nor a company. He is huge here in SE wisconsin, hence the articles existence, and quite frankly I’ve heard nothing except that he runs a questionable business. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you do not see the promotional nature of your edits does not argue in favor of unblocking you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The you will not elaborate on what was promotional about it does not assist me in seeing what you see as promotional Tbrennan0827 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2024 (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).

Tbrennan0827 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

TBh I´m not completely sure why i was blocked based on what was explained to me. I suppose it was because I did not "explain why (gruber) was significant" enough and it seemed like advertising rather than a Wikipedia entry? I disagree but that´s what i have best gathered. To remedy that, I suppose i would write more about how huge his presence in SE Wisconsin is and why that warrants a page on wikipedia. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We have a page that deals exactly with why what you have been trying to do re Gruber is problematic. Sorry no one linked you to it before. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2024 (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.

It’s ok, I appreciate your response. But I still don’t see how what I did was advertising. The link that you sent me lists out what is promotion in a few bullet points. I agree with the concepts, but none of them apply here:

"ensuring awareness" for *your* service, cause, website, or whatever "making sure people know about" *your product, service, website, or whatever* "keeping the story straight" in an article about *you* or *someone/something you have close ties with* "*just posting facts*" that everyone else thinks sounds like an advertisement

I have done exactly none of these. I have no relation with gruber at all, as I have previously mentioned, so it’s quite not possible to do those. I don't really care if he fails. I do not wish to promote him one bit. I made the page because, frankly, I was surprised he didn't have one seeing how big he is here. I wanted to read about his background on Wikipedia, but he didn't have one.

The fact that I was banned from ALL EDITING because I made two pages concerning a WIDELY-KNOWN BUSINESS PERSON in Wisconsin when others make disruptive edits and get multiple warnings is truly bizarre.

Really, I just want my editing privileges back. I want to fix the endless periods people put outside quotations here. I am not a disruption. I've never vandalized. I don't make bad content.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tbrennan0827 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Look, I truly do not get why what I did warranted a block and think it’s fairly insane that I was given one. Please read above to see my reason. That said, I really do want my editing privileges back. As I said, I don’t made disruptive edits, I don’t spam, and I’m not trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever. I just want my editing back so I can fix terrible grammar things and contribute to the project. Growing forward, I guess I won't make an article about gruber. If that's what it takes then fine. Just unblock me please. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Look, I truly do not get why what I did warranted a block and think it’s fairly insane that I was given one. Please read above to see my reason. That said, I really do want my editing privileges back. As I said, I don’t made disruptive edits, I don’t spam, and I’m not trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever. I just want my editing back so I can fix terrible grammar things and contribute to the project. Growing forward, I guess I won't make an article about gruber. If that's what it takes then fine. Just unblock me please. [[User:Tbrennan0827|Tbrennan0827]] ([[User talk:Tbrennan0827#top|talk]]) 08:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Look, I truly do not get why what I did warranted a block and think it’s fairly insane that I was given one. Please read above to see my reason. That said, I really do want my editing privileges back. As I said, I don’t made disruptive edits, I don’t spam, and I’m not trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever. I just want my editing back so I can fix terrible grammar things and contribute to the project. Growing forward, I guess I won't make an article about gruber. If that's what it takes then fine. Just unblock me please. [[User:Tbrennan0827|Tbrennan0827]] ([[User talk:Tbrennan0827#top|talk]]) 08:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Look, I truly do not get why what I did warranted a block and think it’s fairly insane that I was given one. Please read above to see my reason. That said, I really do want my editing privileges back. As I said, I don’t made disruptive edits, I don’t spam, and I’m not trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever. I just want my editing back so I can fix terrible grammar things and contribute to the project. Growing forward, I guess I won't make an article about gruber. If that's what it takes then fine. Just unblock me please. [[User:Tbrennan0827|Tbrennan0827]] ([[User talk:Tbrennan0827#top|talk]]) 08:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

What constructive edits would you make? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, most of the edits that I make are grammar related: commas, tense adjustments, wordinesses, and things of that nature. That’s probably 80% of what I’d do. Tbrennan0827 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]