User talk:Btowndirewolf

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Maddysecretly.OA! Thank you for your contributions. I am K6ka and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 16:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU[edit]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please tell me specifically how this page is in anyway promoting that company and I will remedy it. I have provided objectively valuable information on this company that has no wiki web presence. There are companies that this page is affiliated with and I have removed any tags to that page (although I don't see the benefit of this) in order to remove all possible promotional ties. The information I have provided for this topic is purely informational and I'm requesting that someone either help me or please realize that my intentions are not promotional at all. There is no information on wikipedia about this company, and I believe there should be. Btowndirewolf (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A lot of people who work in marketing genuinely do not seem to understand that the way they write marketing material is not the way ordinary people talk in everyday English - and it is not an appropriate way to write for an encyclopedia. I've just read one article you created, Secretly Distribution (now reverted to a redirect), and it is written entirely the way someone would write when trying to make the company look good (and it's full of trivia that's really not suited to an encyclopedia). To pick probably the worst paragraph, we are treated to things like "The labels that fall under the banner of the Secretly Group have been responsible for some of the most defining records in independent music", "...are just a few of the names that turn up in their catalog, along with lesser-known but just as essential records by groups like...", "...this legacy with their timeless reissues of vintage boxsets from established artists...".

To be considered for unblocking, I think you would need to commit to following Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines (as explained at WP:COI) and agree not to write directly about this company (or about anything else to which you have a connection), but instead to use the WP:AFC process or to request edits on article talk pages as appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 8 November 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 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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you (talk) for the helpful information. I understand that the writing in this article is not objective and will improve upon the page. You're right, when I was reading and reviewing my contribution to this page, I was not seeing it from the proper, objective perspective. If unblocked, I will be more careful in my editing process to sound as un-promotional as possible. I realize that wikipedia is purely a source of information and readers do not necessarily want to be persuaded to find more information on a company, especially through channels that only promote and highlight their positive attributes. If I am unblocked, I will re-word my contribution to this page without using hyperbolically promotional language, and request edits from other users to add more in-depth information so as to not be a conflict of interest on wikipedia. I appreciate all of the help I've been given in this process which is very new to me (obviously haha) and a process in which I am determined to execute properly.

Decline reason:

I would feel much better about unblocking you if I felt you were interested in helping us build Wikipedia. I feel you are here with a different agenda-- one of writing about (a) particular subject(s) which creates a conflict of interest. It is doubtful that your interests coincide with ours. Please see Alex's comment below, which is more articulate than I can be. Please see the boilerplate invitation I'll add below. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 8 November 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.

Moving forward, you would need to properly disclose your conflict of interest. Is the sole intention of this account used for providing information on this company that has no wiki web presence? Please note that Wikipedia is not a social network. Company pages needs to meet the notability guideline for companies, needs to have significant and depth of coverage from reliable sources. Alex Shih (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can help us make Wikipedia better[edit]

Wikipedia has many articles in need of improvement. Perhaps you can help.

Some articles need copy editing.

Category:All articles needing copy edit

Wikipedia articles need verifiable information from WP:reliable sources

Category:Articles lacking sources

Reliable sources should have inline citations to identify where information came from

Category:Articles lacking in-text citations

We would appreciate help in improving these articles.

There is more information at Wikipedia:Community_portal Cheers, and happy editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not being paid to write this article. It's the first contribution I've ever made on wikipedia, so naturally all my focus is on that specific subject. The page is not promotional, nor do I want to treat Wikipedia as a social networking site. I understand Wikipedia's mission and identity as an online encyclopedia and my writing should have reflected that knowledge. If unblocked, I will remain entirely objective, and once the edited article has been reposted, I will only ask for others to add content from that moment on. Btowndirewolf (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per others below, I don't find your explanations credible. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. GoldenRing (talk) 11:34, 10 November 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.

COI discussion[edit]

What Wikipedia considers a "paid editor" is not necessarily someone directly paid to edit an article, so I have to ask do you have any personal connection with Secretly Group? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a personal connection with Secretly Group. On the page I wanted to create, I was merely trying to point out that there was indeed a connection of the subject matter to Secretly Group, but no I have no personal connection with them. I should not have worded the page I was creating to sound as such, and I understand now why you would think I was being paid directly/indirectly. Thank you again for helping me, I hope to get this page published with the proper edits and I respect your decision regardless of the outcome.

I am skeptical that someone with no connection whatsoever to the company being written about, would nevertheless write in a blatantly promotional manner. I see no reason why a neutral editor would write in that fashion. You've been given an opportunity to disclose a conflict of interest. Having a conflict of interest isn't a bad thing. There are several respected editors here who have a conflict of interest and disclose it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The original username of this account was "Maddysecretly.OA". It would be difficult for anyone to believe that there are no connections with Secretly Group. Alex Shih (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though your minds are made up. I have no personal connection, but keep me blocked if you'd like. I'll see if I can write those who work at the company and tell them they should have a wiki page since many other branches of that company have encyclopedic information on the site. I was a fan of the company so my writing came off as biased due to the fact that I did not take wikipedia as seriously as I should have. I thought I could create a page about something I liked, and knew a little bit about with no issues. That is not the case. I neglected to expect the amount of basic coding (that I understand very little of), and multiple obstacles it takes to create such a page. I appreciate everyone's dedication and professionalism within the wikiverse, have a lovely day, and hopefully someone from the company can do this the right way so that the information will be available to the public. Btowndirewolf (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you revealed your own association with the company when you created a draft article in the first person, with phrases like "we have a few more folks working in our office...", "We serve as the exclusive distributor...", "Our focus is the incredible content...." Until you can explain your actions in a credible way instead of simply resorting to denial, you can remain blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Alright, thanks ya'll. Looks like I was just confused about the qualifications for this conflict of interest template, and the explanations given on how to edit my account to show that. But I wanted my content to be as objective as possible, which it was not, in order to shed some light on different branches of that company. I'll just speak to my supervisors (at a separate branch of a similar company) about updating their accounts, which already include the conflict of interest/paid submission templates. This account/username is my personal one and not one for company use, so I did not want to associate "btowndirewolf" with the company at all. Maybe this article will be better posted by the company's own wikipedia username. I just took it upon myself, and my personal wiki username, to start the process of this article. I know now that is not possible if I want to keep "btowndirewolf" as an objective, independent account to edit pages in the wikiverse. I know you won't unblock me, but if you do I will not post anything more on this subject and transfer responsibility to the company's own user account. Thanks for all your help. Is there a way you can unblock me so I can edit other pages to help out with those editing checklists being posted to my talk page?

and that first draft you're referring to... I should have never saved it! Rookie mistake. I was saving things just because I was worried my initial research would be deleted. I was looking on their website and copied it over in that initial research. That was the language gotten off of the company's website, which I also now know is not allowed to be referenced.

Path forward to unblocking[edit]

OK, I think I see the problem. The Wikipedia community doesn't care about the username being associated with a company as long as it's clear the username belongs to an individual and isn't shared. We have lots of "individual person corporate names", like User:Mark at Alcoa for example, and they're fine. The point is, the person behind any account must declare any conflict of interest, regardless of the username. We have many editors here who have personal account names, who have also declared a conflict of interest with specific topics. They edit a variety of pages on Wikipedia and avoid pages where they have a conflict of interest.

Editors who receive any sort of compensation for editing must put a paid editing template on their user page (see WP:PAID for guidance on this). As long as you're open and transparent about your associations, and comply with the WP:COI guidelines, you're good.

Each username belongs to a person as an individual, not an organization or role (like "SecretlyGroupMarketing" or some such). There are basically two rules:

The account must have a name that clearly and unambiguously belongs to an individual, not a company or role.
No matter what the name, the person behind the account must declare any conflict of interest.

So, your username is fine. Your previous username may have also been fine, but it wasn't really clear that it was an individualized username that belongs only to you, not your employer.

Path forward: Formulate a new unblock request. Read WP:COI first. If you intend to edit outside your conflict of interest, say so. You must agree to declare your conflict of interest associations, or paid editing status. You must agree never to create, or make substantive changes to, articles in main article space if you have a conflict of interest with that topic. If you want to create an article on a topic with which you have a conflict, you must agree to submit your draft for review via WP:AFC, not try to publish it in main space. You may not make any substantive changes to articles in main space if you have a conflict of interest with the topic; instead you must propose your changes on the talk page for review. You may use the {{request edit}} template to signal your proposal to the community. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Start Over[edit]

[unblock request moved below]

I am a little unhappy about the deceptive use of "no personal connection" earlier (as it was "professional connection"?), but I am okay with unblocking based on this statement. Waiting for another opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't mean to deceive Alex Shih , this is all a learning process and I just didn't really understand what you were wanting from me. Apologies :(

@Alex Shih: I'm OK also, as long as the user understands that Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity purposes. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the process now. I'll be sure to request any and all edits, using the proper channels/templates and not attempt to post any information in the main space for articles I have any sort of affiliation with. I will not post information that is biased toward my COIs, and accept that my edits/suggestions are exactly that... suggestions. Someone else will have to approve those suggestions and determine whether the information is appropriate and necessary for the article.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hey there. My username is dedicated to my appreciation and advocacy of the direwolves in Game Of Thrones. The Secretly Distribution article qualifies as a conflict of interest since I am employed at the company. Any edits I suggest for the Secretly Distribution page will be submitted as a draft review to WP:AFC, and I will not try to publish it in the main space. I will never create, or make substantive changes to articles in the main article space if I am in some way affiliated with the subject. Any and all instances of COI associated with username btowndirewolf will be disclosed. Any future COIs will require me to first propose my changes on the article's talk page for review using the {{request edit}} template to signal my proposal to the wikiverse (The Wikipedia Community). Btowndirewolf (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am conditionally lifting this block placed by myself based on the full COI disclosure and statement to adhere to the TOS, in addition to the endorse from another administrator, as long as this account stays away from promotional editing. Alex Shih (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article ''Secretly Distribution''.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Secretly Distribution (November 13)[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 Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Secretly Distribution and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Btowndirewolf, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Theroadislong (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

It doesn't help if you are going to ignore advices being given (re-inserting essentially spam in this edit, or persistently re-submiting the draft without having read the concerns made by the reviewer), nor making an effort to understand basic policies of Wikipedia (reverting back to promotional tones here and trying to categorize an AfC entry in this edit). This account will be swiftly re-blocked if you cannot contribute constructively. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih The language is changed, the references are there. Is something not cited correctly? I re-added the "label family" section, is that the issue? The article is objective and i've taken all of the necessary steps to disclose my COI. Btowndirewolf (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what I wrote? You have made no attempt to address the notability concerns raised by the reviewer, and continues to persistently re-submitting the draft, which is considered as disruptive here in Wikipedia and needs to stop. Also, 1) It's not up to you to decide if the article is "objective" 2) None of the "sources" are up to the standards of WP:RS and the article at the current state does not meet WP:NCORP nor WP:CORPDEPTH. Alex Shih (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Then it looks like wikipedia just shouldn't have this article based on the criteria mapped out in WP:RS , WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. In my own defense, everyone was throwing out WP: articles to reference and I apparently missed several important instructions. This has officially become too complicated for me, someone with zero experience in creating an encyclopedic page like this, so I'm forced to stop request draft edits. I guess just delete the draft page altogether? I truly did not take wikipedia as serious as the rest of the world. I'm pretty done with taking up both of our time. Sorry for the wasted time and energy on this matter. Btowndirewolf (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I am sorry about your negative experience, but as you have indicated, it's an encyclopedia after all with some minimum standards. Once the organization receives significant coverage from reliable sources, this kind of experience wouldn't exist anymore. Take care. Alex Shih (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Secretly Distribution[edit]

Hello, Btowndirewolf. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Secretly Distribution".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 17:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag and made some minor edits. I think it would be best to expand the article Secretly Group and merge the Secretly Distribution draft into it. It doesn't look like it's worth having a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Secretly Distribution[edit]

Hello, Btowndirewolf. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Secretly Distribution".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]