User talk:Richaral12

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, CLARREOScience, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLARREOScience → Ccscience

Current name: CLARREOScience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
Requested name: Ccscience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
For global renamer: rename user
Datestamp: 18:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Reason: Need to unblock user account CLARREOScience (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Richaral12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Ccscience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

Please review our username policy - your username must not be related to your company. Please also respond to the questions below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Richaral12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Richaral12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Please go to WP:CHU/Simple and request a change of username. Refrain from editing in other areas until the user name change is complete. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

Yes, I understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a business directory. I'm not trying to advertise, market or promote CLARREO as a business as it is not a business. This page is simply meant to be informational like similar pages already in existence (see "SAGE III on ISS" as an example of what i'm trying to create). Does the language in the article make you think that something is being sold? If so, what do you suggest I change?
Yes, I have read and understand Wikipedia's definition of conflict of interest. I am an contractor who does education at NASA and am trying to write a neutral-toned, educational overview of the CLARREO program that falls within the appropriate guidelines of Wikipedia, w/o selling or inappropriately advertising the program. The conflict of interest overview on Wikipedia suggests I can add a statement that conveys that the main editor/creator of the page is an employee of the program. Can you point me to an example of this type of statement that I can add to the talk page (and the actual Wikipedia CLARREO page if needed) to address any future concern over COI? Please advise how I can best remedy this.
The topic is indeed notable. There are innumerable references that can be cited for this topic, I simply haven't had a chance to add all of the references.
Is the sandbox the best place for me to create draft pages? Or, is there another alternate location that is better for creating drafts?

Thanks. CLARREOScience (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answers:

It is irrelevant whether or not you are trying to sell something. "Promotion" does not equal selling. Promotion is any attempt to use Wikipedia to generate publicity, commercial or not. Wikipedia is not a promotion channel. The fact that you created an account with an organization name and proceeded to write an article about that organization implies that your purpose here is promotional; i.e. to generate publicity.
On your user page, simply write a statement explaining your conflict of interest. You can also place the tag {{coi}} at the top of the article, which would generate a message that the article was written by someone with a close connection to the subject, but this is generally needed only if others perceive a lack of neutrality.
For notability, even for non-commercial entities, our guideline WP:CORP describes the criteria for inclusion that an organization must meet before it merits an article on Wikipedia. References must be independent of the subject and qualify as reliable sources. Press releases or anything that comes from the organization, self published sources like blogs, or user-generated content like forums, are not acceptable sources.
The public sandbox Wikipedia:Sandbox is not a good place to create an article. It is best to work on it in your own private sandbox. When your username is changed, you would create User:Richaral12/Sandbox and use that to work on articles. You can create any number of subpages for separate articles if you wish.

Anything else unclear? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: Thank you for your quick responses Amatulic. A couple more questions and responses... 1. I don't want to promote or generate publicity for this program. The intent in creating a page for this topic was purely educational, no publicity needed nor desired. Is that ok? The reason I chose the first user name I did was b/c it was simple to remember and associated with the topic I was describing. I realize now that I violated one of the username rules in that my username included the title of the topic I was writing about. I've since requested a username change that I believe is inline with the Wikipedia guidelines (new username request: Richaral12) and has no relation to the topic i'm writing about. 2. To address any issues of COI, I'm happy to add {{coi}} at the top of the article once i'm given permission to edit again (which will be soon I hope!). 3. I can provide plenty of peer-reviewed references to support the notability of this topic once I'm given permission to edit the page. No problem. 4. I thought I was editing in my personal sandbox; is that not the case? So much to learn... :) CLARREOScience (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To your first question, no it isn't OK to create pages with the intent of being "purely educational". I delete new articles on a daily basis that the creator claims should be kept because the content is "educational" or "contains only facts". Wikipedia can accept only articles having notable topics as defined by Wikipedia:Notability and related notability guidelines such as WP:CORP, WP:BAND, etc.

Yes, you were editing in your personal sandbox. I thought you were asking about the common sandbox.

Looking at what you did, however, there's no mistaking that this is a promotional article, complete with external links up front, unreferenced testimonial quotations, and headings in the form of questions like "What is CLARREO?" that look as if they were lifted directly from a company brochure or press release. If you had written that in main article space instead of your sandbox, I estimate it wouldn't have lasted two hours before being deleted.

I briefly looked for sources. The Google hits all seem to originate from NASA. No news coverage at all, as far as I can tell. Google Scholar reveals several sources that mention CLARREO, but I see no articles about CLARREO; mostly they seem to be about specific research or an individual instrument intended for a mission. We need significant coverage of CLARREO (not trivial mentions) from multiple sources independent of NASA or the researchers contributing to the project. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like I need to change the way i'm writing the article (i.e. not phrase the subtitles as questions) b/c it is coming off as promotional. This is an example of how I want my article to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAGE_III_on_ISS

This is a good example, correct?

I thought having external links was desirable in a Wikipedia article? Don't you want us to reference other examples of where the information can found online?

In regards to "unreferenced testimonial quotations," yes, there is a quote in the body of the text and I plan on referencing it but didn't get a chance before I was blocked from editing. That goes for my references as well. I have them and I want to include them. It takes time to get an article with pictures, hyperlinks, etc. into Wikipedia, not to mention just LEARNING how to use Wikipedia for the first time takes a great deal of time. Is there a way that I can create and FINISH an article and THEN have someone give me feedback on it so that I can make sure that in-text quotes and references and internal links are actually included? I thought I could create an article in my sandbox over the course of a week, adding information as I have time but that has not been the case. The article you see isn't my final product but b/c I'm blocked I can't make the changes you're suggesting need to be made (and changes i'm happy to make!).

Here are 5 articles (plus a book) written by respected and reliable sources outside of NASA that speak to the topics' notability with more than a trivial mention:

You'll also notice there is a reference to a book from the National Research Council, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 426pp (2007) that I did get a chance to include before I was blocked.

What are the next steps I need to take to resume editing privileges? CLARREOScience (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked. Go to WP:CHU/Simple and request a change of your user name. Do this first.

I have corrected the indentation formatting of your comment above for readability. Those sources look good, but note that the NASA source is not independent of the topic. It's fine to use it to reference statements made by by NASA, although it doesn't really count as "coverage". The other sources are fine, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! CLARREOScience (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

CLARREO, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]