User talk:DNMBeljaars

Speedy deletion nomination of Welfare Quality
Hello DNMBeljaars,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Welfare Quality for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

–Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because this is a multi-institutional, multidisciplinary, multicountry research project, it does not sell anything, it is not an idea, person or product that I want people to buy into. It is neither implicitly nor explicitly aimed at such activities. It only explains the research project and the choices made within it, it does leverage persuasive language. This makes it inherently encyclopedic in my view. I set up the Wikipedia page as an archive of the project and to provide information relevant for farmers, animal welfare groups, and anyone else who wants to know more about particular research endeavours in animal welfare. This also makes this page beyond the topic of animal welfare to which it was redirected immediately after I published it. Please indicate what makes it promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNMBeljaars (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Copied by Athaenara from the talk page of the deleted article.


 * I'll have a go at this, although probably you'll learn more by reading the relevant Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOT PROMOTION and links from there. This particular article is heavily based on primary sources, lightly reworded, which inevitably lends a self-promotional tone to the wording.  Use of the registered trademark symbol throughout the article just screams promotional, and simply isn't done within Wikipedia.  You didn't help yourself by copying blocks of text unchanged from the Welfare Quality website, something which is very much not allowed as it infringes copyright, and even if it was public-domain text would be WP:PLAGIARISM.  I suspect you have further antagonised several editors by repeatedly reverting without discussing (WP:BRD).  Lastly and without wishing to bite the newbies, when the first and only action of a new user is to create a large complex article, heavily copied from primary sources, about a borderline notable subject, it is always going to attract close attention.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2018 (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:. – Athaenara ✉  07:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)