User talk:SilhouetteCastle

This is SilhouetteCastle's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Red Charcoal (July 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 Mcmatter was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

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:Red Charcoal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SilhouetteCastle! 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! McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== Red Charcoal ==

Hi

Regarding your edit for the 'Red Charcoal' music page, the aim of its inclusion is to relate this artist to her real name 'Caroline Oluwatope Karason nee Gideon-Adeniyi' who is noteworthy as a Scientist. There has been confusion as to whether 'Caroline Oluwatope Karason' and 'Red Charcoal' are the same person which is why this edit hopefully should clear this up.

The reason why 'Caroline Oluwatope Karason' is notable is because of her scientific invention that she was not credited for, for over 10 years. She is in the process of having her name added to the respective patents. This can be independently and externally proved via professors at her university: London College of Fashion, University of the Arts and by the employees at the reknown FTSE 100 pharmaceutical company Reckitt Benckiser in Hull (Headquarters Hull) where she created the sensitive variant of the trademarked Veet™ gel formulation in 2010, the first of its kind (which is very significant as Veet™ is not only a Powerbrand but the No. 1 Depilatory brand in the whole world) which was later sold to consumers worldwide. She then went into Science and English teaching and currently is the musician/artist 'Red Charcoal'.

In addition to the Veet™ gel formulation, she also invented a new in-vitro test method for rapidly screening irritant formulas (at Reckitt Benckiser) and a 'lip compression and separation test' for analysing the textural rheology of cosmetic products, namely toothpaste.

She also was expertly trained in perfume creation and composition by John Ayres of Givaudan, the worlds largest fragrance and flavour company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckitt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckitt_and_Sons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_College_of_Fashion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_the_Arts_London

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothpaste

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705817_Assessing_the_Relationship_Between_Instrumental_and_Perceived_Sensory_Attributes_of_Commercially_Available_Personal_Care_Products

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359705407_Identifying_a_Rapid_In-Vitro_Screening_Test_Method_to_Assess_Dermal_Irritancy_Potentials_Across_a_Range_of_Veet_Formulations_Containing_Potassium_Thioglycolate

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130205514A1/en

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140309308A1/en

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20130205514

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20140309308

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givaudan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fragrance_Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfumer

http://www.bsp.org.uk

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/carolinekarason

https://redcharcoalmusic.com SilhouetteCastle (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Red Charcoal (August 8)[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 Dan arndt was:

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 people). 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:

Fails WP:MUSICBIO - Spotify, YouTube, AppleMusic, Tidal, Amazon.com, Jaxsta, and MusicXmatch are not acceptable or reliable sources. The artist's website is a primary source and not independent or reliable.

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:Red Charcoal 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Red Charcoal[edit]

Hello, SilhouetteCastle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Red Charcoal, 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) 11:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Red Charcoal[edit]

Hello, SilhouetteCastle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Red Charcoal".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Red charcoal[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 Red charcoal 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 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13895542/. 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested this SilhouetteCastle (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Red Charcoal[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 Red Charcoal 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 band or musician 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested this SilhouetteCastle (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello SilhouetteCastle! Your additions to Red Charcoal have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haave contested this SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself, at Red Charcoal. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Notable people who have edited Wikipedia). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested this SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Karason. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

- We need to verify that you are indeed the copyright holder of the text that you have copied. As noted in the message to you above about copyrights, you need to send proof of permission to the VRT so it can be verified. Do NOT add this back again or you will be blocked from editing. -- Whpq (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Caroline Karason for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caroline Karason is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Karason until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Whpq (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have disagreed with this and stated my reasons why SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign any comments you make on talk pages or discussions like the AFD on the article you created. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added this now SilhouetteCastle (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Karason[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself, at Caroline Karason. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Notable people who have edited Wikipedia). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutral, factual and heavily sources. The sources are reliable and independent and the subject is 'notable' as agreed by another Wikipedia editor, 'Significa liberdade (she/her)'. Please refer to her Talk page where she says this: 'Hi, SilhouetteCastle! I removed the A7 deletion. To help the page, it would be beneficial to add these references to it to show that Karason meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. Additionally, it may be helpful to other editors to continue this conversation on the Red Charcoal talk page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)' SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to pages linked to above (the words in blue), I strongly suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (particularly this, this and this), Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people (particularly this) because there seem to be some important things about Wikipedia that you might not know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is neutral, factual and heavily sourced. The sources are reliable and independent and the subject is 'notable' as agreed by another Wikipedia editor, 'Significa liberdade (she/her)'.

I have noticed that you have already added a banner regarding 'Connected Contributor' SilhouetteCastle (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the 'Caroline Karason' article. Please point out the part/s that is not factual or not heavily sourced. (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Caroline. I can see you're having a hard time with the various Wikipedia policies that govern whether or not an article should be kept.

The minimum standard for all articles is notability, which you can read about at WP:NOTABILITY.

The minimum standard for notability is significant coverage of the article subject in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Each source must fulfill all of the criteria: independent, reliable, secondary, and significant coverage. For biographies of living people, we'd like to see three such sources. I've taken a look through the sources on the article you wrote about yourself, and I literally do not see a single one that fulfills all of these criteria. I'm sorry, but you simply haven't demonstrated notability.

I'm happy to discuss further. Valereee (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key question in this entire discussion is why @Whpq did not disagree that 'Red Charcoal' was notable and backed by a reliable sources but believes that 'Caroline Karason' is not when they are the same person and the same reliable sources where used. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WHPQ said anything about whether or not he believed Red Charcoal was notable. He said it was deleted for being a copyvio. Those are two completely separate questions. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilhouetteCastle, Red Charcoal was deleted on the basis that it was a copyright violation, it had nothing to do with whether or not it was notable. The article Caroline Karason article is being discussed because @Whpq did not find the subject notable. It's not a personal attack against you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as others have pointed out a reliably sourced article doesn't automatically mean a subject is notable. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Karason) for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not think that I should be blocked because certain individuals are trying to monopolise the chat (who surprisingly were not blocked). I was treated unfairly and I was simply explaining that its seems that there is no actual reason other than a personal reason that my pages should not remain on Wikipedia. It makes no reasonable or sound judgement for someone to not take issue to how notable an music artist is but take issue to the person behind the artist when they are exactly the same person. This was my last sentence before I was blocked: 'Do Not Delete @--serialThis new what I want to say, I think the key question in this entire discussion is why @Whpq did not disagree that 'Red Charcoal' was notable and backed by a reliable sources but believes that 'Caroline Karason' is not when they are the same person and the same reliable sources where used. This whole discussion hangs on this because @Whpqis the same person who deleted the 'Red Charcoal' page and nominated this one the 'Caroline Karason' one for deletion. That is neither reasonable nor fair and you blocking/covering/ distracting from my comments so a lack of reasonableness and sound judgement so if you would like to seek to have me blocked for merely defending myself against and absurd situation then I will do the same to you based on this reasoning. I will not be bullied nor intimidated by you. @--serial SilhouetteCastle (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)' What I have said is factual but because they don't want people to see the truth of the situation they blocked me. A one week block is too long as I believe the by the end of the week the block would be decided and I would not be able to defend against what is being said. Lastly, out of all the people in the discussion they are just going along with what --serial is saying because of this users aggressive style of writing but no one has stopped to discuss which sentence within the whole article 'Caroline Karason' have they each found to be unreliable or not sourced well. Which just shows what kind of discussion this really is: non-factual and passionately following others opinion regardless of whether or not it is sound. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see you disclosed a conflict of interest and then removed it. That's deeply concerning. Additionally, you have not addressed your disruptive editing. You were given plenty of warning and chose to ignore these warnings. You are very lucky you were blocked from only a single page, a page where you've already voted, and only for a week. If you don't learn from your mistakes here, you should expect your next block will be substantially longer. Yamla (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2023 (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.

@yamla I would first like to say that the 'conflict of interest' was a mistake. I am not an expert in Wikipedia and as you can see from my Talk page I have not edited many articles. I only went to see the 'conflict of interest' section in response to a comment by a user/editor and I added it by accident. On the 'Caroline Karason' discussion page the editing was also a mistake, I wanted to stop using the bold and find the way to colour the background into different colours but I was unable to and even now not able to and the people on there were not in the right frame for me to ask so I edited some parts by accident. But even with this aside I was treated unfairly and the discussion for deletion started from an unreasonable place and I believe that others were made to be distracted from my comments because of how --serial edited my comments. If they didn't do this there would be no need to keep reexplaining myself

Caroline, the block for a week was an intentional choice to prevent you from continuing to bludgeon that discussion, which indeed will end in six days. As I said there, you've made your points and there is no reason to continue to make them over and over and over again.

I am willing to continue to discuss with you how policy applies here, but you're going to have to accept the fact that as a very inexperienced user, you don't understand how things work here and are going to have to listen to what other editors are trying to explain. We include articles on subjects that are notable, and Caroline Karason hasn't been shown to be notable. That doesn't mean the subject will never become notable, but right now I'm not seeing it, and neither is anyone else. There's nothing unfair or personal in that. Also listen to Yamla above...my block was literally the minimum that could be considered appropriate. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Valereee I disagree with the block and believe you did it to protect the last very sound point that I made and to hide the user @--serial's action. Please re-read my reasons for an unblock and my reasons in the discussions. Regardless for whether I am experienced or inexperienced I do not nee to listen to people that show a lapse in judgement and reasonableness and that is trying to distract people from the unfairness that happened within the discussion. I'm even surprised that these people can be editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilhouetteCastle (talk • contribs)

SilhouetteCastle, this is completely the wrong approach to take. If you continue down this road, I or another admin will block you site-wide indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yamla,

I believe that the decision to block me is was the reason for the creation of the nomination to delete the 'Caroline Karason' page.

It makes no reasonable for the same person to not have an issue with notability as a Musician but have a problem with it as their own person. I would understand if it was the same decision for both but it is not. @whpq said in the discussion @ 15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 'Those copyright issues were the sole reason that article was deleted.' in reference to the 'Red Charcoal' page. @Significa liberdade also took of the A7 for the same person but bizarrely because they are now not a Musician there is now an issue with 'reliable sources'.

This whole situation is super strange in that so many find this 'reasonable'. SilhouetteCastle (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting what that person meant and this was already explained to you. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK immediately. You won't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misrepresenting what anyone said. This quote is found in the 'Caroline Karason' discussion:

15:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 'Those copyright issues were the sole reason that article was deleted.' SilhouetteCastle (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

@yamla I would first like to say that the 'conflict of interest' was a mistake. I am not an expert in Wikipedia and as you can see from my Talk page I have not edited many articles. I only went to see the 'conflict of interest' section in response to a comment by a user/editor and I added it by accident. On the 'Caroline Karason' discussion page the editing was also a mistake, I wanted to stop using the bold and find the way to colour the background into different colours but I was unable to and even now not able to and the people on there were not in the right frame for me to ask so I edited some parts by accident. But even with this aside I was treated unfairly and the discussion for deletion started from an unreasonable place and I believe that others were made to be distracted from my comments because of how --serial edited my comments. If they didn't do this there would be no need to keep reexplaining myself SilhouetteCastle (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You aren't giving any reason for us to believe that your disruptive editing on that page will stop. You've given your opinion on that page. The discussion will play out, and you can use the rest of the week to get a better understanding of our rules and norms. See the box at the top of the page for some useful hints. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2023 (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.

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked was @yamla was trying to force me to believe that 'quoting' someone and 'misrepresenting them' are the same thing. I disagree and I will always disagree with this line of thinking SilhouetteCastle (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:10, 6 December 2023 (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.