User talk:Annecleader

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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. I have no idea what this means; I am a PhD in art history trying to edit from home

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; you need to tell us your IP address for us to investigate your claim this is not an open proxy. WhatIsMyIP will tell you your IP address. If you are uncomfortable providing this publicly, you can use the slower WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2017 (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.

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

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

UTRS appeal #17491 was submitted on Feb 08, 2017 19:03:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC) I checked subsequent to the UTRS request and it appears that the IP address in question is no longer running a proxy, so I took the liberty of lifting the block. Please try now. Note that you were never the target of the block. Proxies are blocked because they are widely used for abuse and it's likely whoever had your IP address before you did was running a proxy, but no reason to think you were. And even if you were, there's nothing wrong with that. If I'm being unclear, feel free to ask for clarification. --Yamla (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still have no idea what any of this means, but I'll make an edit so you can see I'm just a historian!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sepoltuario has been accepted[edit]

Sepoltuario, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Digital Sepltuario (July 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Calliopejen1 were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). 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.

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:Digital Sepltuario 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:Digital Sepltuario, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Annecleader! 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! Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Digital Sepltuario has been accepted[edit]

Digital Sepltuario, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ingratis (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

==Not online== I have just noticed that the database is not yet available online. Before I return the article to draft status, is it likely to be accessible very soon? Ingratis (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Sepoltuario moved to draftspace[edit]

I had published the draft, with some further edits to reduce the promotional element still further (and fixing the typo in the title) but have just noticed that the database is not actually available yet, which makes it difficult to have a useful Wikipedia article about it. I've therefore returned your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (This is unlikely IMO to be until the database has been published). Ingratis (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. It is true the site isn’t live yet, so I will update once it is. Many thanks. 75.143.80.226 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Digital Sepoltuario has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Digital Sepoltuario. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A follow up with a few questions regarding your comment: 1) Created this article in keeping with the recommendations to librarians and archival collections managers to use Wikipedia in this way https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/IR/00/00/41/58/00001/ImprovingAccessSEOstrategies.pdf. See specifically p. 6. If this document is offering poor advice, please let me know. 2)do conference papers, presentations, and/or grant announcements count as "references about the subject of the article"? 3) would the sentence cited at notes 6, 7, and 8 be appropriate if I include that Digital Sepoltuario is linked to those websites as "additional resources"? 4) I assume sources should only be those that are in print, not in press. There will be several references coming out soon. Thanks.

1) I'd say the advice there is incomplete. I'd check out WP:GLAM and also Wikipedia:GLAM/COI/FAQ for more information. We definitely welcome contributions from GLAM professionals, and usually/often Wikipedia's interests are aligned with GLAMs' interests. But we don't exactly encourage the use of Wikipedia for SEO. Some info about that is here: Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. 2) Conference papers and presentations probably not, because they are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, unless they have been published in a reputable publication. Grant announcements are self-published primary sources, definitely not. 3) No. 4) Correct. Unpublished works can't be used as sources. Let me know if you have any more questions, or ask at WP:TEAHOUSE, particularly if I don't respond promptly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those references and clarifications. I've made some more changes to essay in keeping with your feedback, but it likely should remain a draft until I've had a chance to review GLAM and/or the site goes liveAnnecleader (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Digital Sepoltuario (September 30)[edit]

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

I think this is an example of WP:TOOSOON, because the references are almost all by the project or by the co project director for Digital Sepoltuario: The Tombs of Renaissance Florence (as declared on their user page).

While I was tempted to accept this draft I am minded of our brief which is to accept drafts which we believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. I am pretty certain that this would be submitted for deletion and fail, thus making future publication an uphill struggle

You are welcome to ask the AFC help desk to review my decision with a view to overturning it of you wish. I will stand aside from that process

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:Digital Sepoltuario 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:Digital Sepoltuario, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Digital Sepoltuario[edit]

Hello, Annecleader. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Digital Sepoltuario, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]