User talk:Michael121255

This is Michael121255'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: Cleverelly (June 16)

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

Pure advertising.

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:Cleverelly 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cleverelly! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Cleverelly

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 Draft:Cleverelly, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, website, or role, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock - see description

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).

Michael121255 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I fully understand that my first draft may have read more like advertising, and I want to approach this properly in line with Wikipedia standards. We’re entering peak summer months where this issue (children being left in hot cars) tragically spikes. My goal was never to promote a product, but to contribute educational content on this topic. We are currently working with state task forces, nonprofits, and safety organizations to develop more independent public resources on this — including articles, public reports, and collaborations — many of which could serve as better references. Since Wikipedia plays a major role in how people access information, I believe a properly framed page could help educate families on behavioral approaches to prevention (not just devices), and add value to the public record on forgotten baby syndrome. I respectfully request any guidance you might have on how I can properly structure this submission with stronger independent sourcing, neutral tone, and public health value so it can better meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for your time, and for the important work you do on Wikipedia. Cleverelly (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not proposed a new username as instructed. Your username needs to represent you as an individual, though your real name is not required. You have a very worthy cause, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good things. Sources that you have a hand in generating would not be acceptable sources as they would not be independent of the subject. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable product. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first, because it follows the coverage, it does not lead the way. What you were doing is considered promotional here, and you will not be permitted to continue. If that is your only goal here, this is the end of the line. If you want to be a more general contributor and edit about topics for which you have no conflict of interest, please tell what those might be. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2025 (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.

Another admin will come and review the block I placed, but in the meantime a couple of things just for your info:

You say you're here to educate, to provide information about the problem and your solution to it. Worthy as the cause may be, that is still very much considered promotion here, see WP:YESPROMO.

Your draft was also inherently promotional because it was you telling the world about your product. We are not interested in that, you should save that for your own marketing channels (which Wikipedia most emphatically is not). Instead, we (almost exclusively) want to see what reliable and independent secondary sources have on their own initiative said about your offering and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Your job would be merely to summarise their published coverage; see WP:GOLDENRULE for more on that.

HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Michael121255 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you again for your clarification. I fully respect the intent of Wikipedia to avoid promotional content. My goal here is not to promote Cleverelly as a product or company, but to create a neutral, public resource about pediatric vehicular heatstroke (PVH), which is the underlying public health issue. The only reason I spoke about product functionality is because the state task forces I am working with had asked me to speak about it to them as they thought this is very unique so accidentally thought to do the same here.

I understand that I cannot write about my own product unless independent, reliable, secondary sources have written about it on their own initiative. While there may be some emerging coverage in this area, I am happy to fully exclude any company-specific content, and instead focus solely on the educational aspect of PVH using data from independent, government-published sources, such as:

NHTSA (US Department of Transportation)
National Safety Council
CDC
Safe Kids Worldwide
State-level Department of Health reports

If appropriate, I would like guidance on whether a standalone article focused purely on Pediatric Vehicular Heatstroke: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies (without mention of my product) may be acceptable if based solely on peer-reviewed, government, and NGO data. I would also love to speak about the estimations and misinformation there is around this issue and how Cleverelly is aiming to share it. The only goal would be to make information on the issue more accessible, referenced entirely from public domain and independent sources. If this approach would be acceptable under Wikipedia standards, I am happy to proceed that way. Thank you again for your time and willingness to guide me. Would it be possible for me to submit another article attempt?

120.147.28.45 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2025 (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=:Thank you again for your clarification. I fully respect the intent of Wikipedia to avoid promotional content. My goal here is not to promote Cleverelly as a product or company, but to create a neutral, public resource about pediatric vehicular heatstroke (PVH), which is the underlying public health issue. The only reason I spoke about product functionality is because the state task forces I am working with had asked me to speak about it to them as they thought this is very unique so accidentally thought to do the same here.

I understand that I cannot write about my own product unless independent, reliable, secondary sources have written about it on their own initiative. While there may be some emerging coverage in this area, I am happy to fully exclude any company-specific content, and instead focus solely on the educational aspect of PVH using data from independent, government-published sources, such as:
* NHTSA (US Department of Transportation)
* National Safety Council
* CDC
* Safe Kids Worldwide
* State-level Department of Health reports
If appropriate, I would like guidance on whether a standalone article focused purely on Pediatric Vehicular Heatstroke: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies (without mention of my product) may be acceptable if based solely on peer-reviewed, government, and NGO data. I would also love to speak about the estimations and misinformation there is around this issue and how Cleverelly is aiming to share it. The only goal would be to make information on the issue more accessible, referenced entirely from public domain and independent sources.
If this approach would be acceptable under Wikipedia standards, I am happy to proceed that way.
Thank you again for your time and willingness to guide me. Would it be possible for me to submit another article attempt?
[[Special:Contributions/120.147.28.45|120.147.28.45]] ([[User talk:120.147.28.45|talk]]) 06:51, 19 June 2025 (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=:Thank you again for your clarification. I fully respect the intent of Wikipedia to avoid promotional content. My goal here is not to promote Cleverelly as a product or company, but to create a neutral, public resource about pediatric vehicular heatstroke (PVH), which is the underlying public health issue. The only reason I spoke about product functionality is because the state task forces I am working with had asked me to speak about it to them as they thought this is very unique so accidentally thought to do the same here.

I understand that I cannot write about my own product unless independent, reliable, secondary sources have written about it on their own initiative. While there may be some emerging coverage in this area, I am happy to fully exclude any company-specific content, and instead focus solely on the educational aspect of PVH using data from independent, government-published sources, such as:
* NHTSA (US Department of Transportation)
* National Safety Council
* CDC
* Safe Kids Worldwide
* State-level Department of Health reports
If appropriate, I would like guidance on whether a standalone article focused purely on Pediatric Vehicular Heatstroke: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies (without mention of my product) may be acceptable if based solely on peer-reviewed, government, and NGO data. I would also love to speak about the estimations and misinformation there is around this issue and how Cleverelly is aiming to share it. The only goal would be to make information on the issue more accessible, referenced entirely from public domain and independent sources.
If this approach would be acceptable under Wikipedia standards, I am happy to proceed that way.
Thank you again for your time and willingness to guide me. Would it be possible for me to submit another article attempt?
[[Special:Contributions/120.147.28.45|120.147.28.45]] ([[User talk:120.147.28.45|talk]]) 06:51, 19 June 2025 (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=:Thank you again for your clarification. I fully respect the intent of Wikipedia to avoid promotional content. My goal here is not to promote Cleverelly as a product or company, but to create a neutral, public resource about pediatric vehicular heatstroke (PVH), which is the underlying public health issue. The only reason I spoke about product functionality is because the state task forces I am working with had asked me to speak about it to them as they thought this is very unique so accidentally thought to do the same here.

I understand that I cannot write about my own product unless independent, reliable, secondary sources have written about it on their own initiative. While there may be some emerging coverage in this area, I am happy to fully exclude any company-specific content, and instead focus solely on the educational aspect of PVH using data from independent, government-published sources, such as:
* NHTSA (US Department of Transportation)
* National Safety Council
* CDC
* Safe Kids Worldwide
* State-level Department of Health reports
If appropriate, I would like guidance on whether a standalone article focused purely on Pediatric Vehicular Heatstroke: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies (without mention of my product) may be acceptable if based solely on peer-reviewed, government, and NGO data. I would also love to speak about the estimations and misinformation there is around this issue and how Cleverelly is aiming to share it. The only goal would be to make information on the issue more accessible, referenced entirely from public domain and independent sources.
If this approach would be acceptable under Wikipedia standards, I am happy to proceed that way.
Thank you again for your time and willingness to guide me. Would it be possible for me to submit another article attempt?
[[Special:Contributions/120.147.28.45|120.147.28.45]] ([[User talk:120.147.28.45|talk]]) 06:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note that this request was made by an IP- please log in to confirm it was you. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Yes, I can confirm that the message made from IP 120.147.28.45 on 19 June 2025 was mine. I'm now logged in as Michael121255. Thank you for your guidance.