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

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Certainly notable but therapeutic sequences should not be included.

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:Forest Therapy 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:Forest Therapy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 06:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geopingo! 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! EROS message 06:59, 24 January 2018 (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 Kb.au was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Notable and covered significantly in academic sources, but a lot of WP:PEACOCK words and spammy language. Sounds like it's written for promotional reasons.

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:Forest Therapy 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:Forest Therapy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kb.au (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Forest Therapy, 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. Kb.au (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2018 (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 Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Forest Therapy instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please do not create multiple copies of drafts when you are also moving the page into article space.

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 User:Geopingo/sandbox 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 User:Geopingo/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Forest Therapy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Forest Therapy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Forest Therapy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Forest Therapy, 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. Kb.au (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a conflict of interest when writing about a topic you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Geopingo. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Geopingo|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
• you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
• there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above.

I notice that you have created multiple versions of this article, often present simultaneously. I'll assume good faith for the moment, but if you decide to recreate again, after clarifying any COI as indicated above, please only have one live version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the COI enquiry, you will appreciate it's a question we are bound to ask. The other issue remains though. Both the deletion nominator and I did not think that the article was neutral in tone nor adequately referenced. For example, your lists of direct and indirect benefits are presented as facts, but unreferenced. Your final sentence is The relatively low-cost approach of the proprietary and standardized Forest Therapy offers a feasible, cost-effective and flexible solution, but the source for that is clearly not an independent third-party source. In fact, the other two refs with web links are also unacceptable, one is offering training, and the other is a Wikipedia. It also doesn't help that none of the other refs seem to have on-line versions that we can check. That's not a requirement, but it means I can't validate what you are saying. And far too much text is completely unsourced.

The tone of the article is unrelentingly positive. Has there never been any criticism or comment on the therapy's limitations?

Not a reason for deletion, but some style hints

• Only have one version of an article posted here at any time
• Don't use bare urls for web links
• Lead section should have no heading
• No bolding except the first use of "Forest Therapy"
• Journal titles should be italicised and written in full, volume number should be bolded.
• State the language of your ref if it isn't English.
• Give doi numbers if they exist so that we can at least see an abstract

Have a look at Paxillus involutus for an example of what a well-referenced article should look like Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you link to full text, do it from the title parameter, like the one I added to the draft ; if it's an abstract, link from the doi or pmid parameter, as in the fungus example I linked above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 6 February 2018 (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 Winged Blades of Godric was:

How much were you paid to write this spam?

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:Forest Therapy 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:Forest Therapy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Forest Therapy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Forest Therapy (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Forest Therapy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Forest Therapy, 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. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Bbb23, as part of a recent academic meeting in Melbourne, Australia, my colleague (User:Wasserlurchi) and I (User:Geopingo) were entrusted to place a new article on the emerging Public health practice 'Forest Therapy' on Wikipedia - as such topic was not covered as yet. Unfortunately, the first drafts submitted by User:Geopingo were rejected as 'spam' which we medical practitioners and scientists found ludicrous. If you carefully follow the critique levelled by some of the Wikipedia reviewers you will notice that we did our very best to modify where suggested and appropriate. However, we felt it was vital to demonstrate that the most recent research from a range of countries, published already in peer-reviewed journals, did exhibit a range of crucial medical effects leading to recommendations to integrate Forest Therapy as a standard Public health practice (as already done in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) in a range of countries (e.g., Germany, Austria, Australia, Finland, New Zealand). The comments made by some reviewers in an inacceptable way vis-a-vis User:Geopingo led to the deletion of the article, despite reviewer User:Jimfbleak taking an opposite and very helpful stance. User:Geopingo had tried to incorporate the suggestions of User:Jimfbleak, particularly with regards to the established health benefits, as best and as neutral as possible. Still, the draft article had been removed. As the topic of 'Forest Therapy' is a relevant, evidence-based Public health practice, it prompted my colleague, User:Wasserlurchi, to resubmit the modified and shortened draft article through her account. As can be seen in the overall chronology of comments in that talk log, there appear conflicting views by reviewers how to deal with such situation. While some still viewed evidence-based (and properly referenced) health benefits as 'spam', others had no problems whatsoever and, subsequently, the draft article was passed and published. Yet, shortly thereafter both accounts - User:Geopingo and User:Wasserlurchi - were closed and, even worse, the article was merged inadequately and factually wrong with 'nature therapy'. It should be stated clearly and categorically that 'nature therapy' is not an evidence-based Public health approach, whereas 'Forest Therapy' is. To cut a long story short, we understand that multiple accounts for one and the same topic should not exist at the same time ("sockpuppetery") and we will heed this policy. We would appreciate, however, if the block on User:Geopingo can be lifted so that an independent article on 'forest therapy' can be drafted and submitted for review. Thank you and have a pleasant day, GeopingoGeopingo (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Normally, a {{Checkuserblock}} would have to be reviewed by a CheckUser (such as Bbb23 here), but in this case there are some more issues that need to be addressed. One, we do not allow accounts to be used by more than one person per account (see WP:ROLE) and with that consideration in mind the use of "we" in your appeal statement is worrisome. Second, the Forest Therapy drafts I read were written in an overly positive tone for a medical procedure that has shown evidence only in small scale clinical trials, which is what many references amounted to. As discussed on WP:MEDRS we need a different kind of evidence for medical claims, and the overly positive tone is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article - articles here need to be written in a dispassionate tone. And some sources don't appear to clearly relate to the subject (see WP:NOR). I am inclined to say that for an unblock to be accepted, you'll need to stay away from the topic completely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:27, 16 February 2018 (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.