User talk:Juliette from Clariti
(Redirected from User talk:Clariti (software))
Juliette from Clariti (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Juliette from Clariti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Request reason:
I see 2 reasons for my block: 1) promotional username which can be easily corrected with the name change I requested (sorry, I didn't know Wikipedia's username policy); 2) promotional editing, which was never my intention. I'd like to operate within Wikipedia's policies and am open to feedback which is why I created my articles as drafts so that they could be reviewed before publication. First thing I'm going to do once unblocked is disclose my conflict of interest (I wasn't aware of that requirement) and then hopefully I'll be able to recreate the draft and, with feedback from more experienced editors and proper sourcing, make it into a viable article. If you Google-search for "Clariti," you'll notice there are quite a few hits and the subject is notable: I might be paid to edit but I'm not a spammer! Thank you for your consideration.
Decline reason:
- Your choice of username seems to be acceptable, however, please understand that Wikipedia is not simply a means to disseminate information, or to merely tell the world about a product; this is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Wikipedia has little to no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself(or its products). If this app has not been written about in independent reliable sources with in depth coverage(which does not include press releases, staff interviews, the company website, or any other primary source), then it will not be possible for there to be an article about it here at this time. To put it another way, Wikipedia only documents what uninvolved third parties write about subjects.
- Do you intend to edit any other articles or in any other topic areas other than that of your business or its products? 331dot (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've had a chat with the blocked editor via the help channel and after going through Wikipedia's policy on notability, helped the user understand that the software simply doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time. It's unlikely he'll be editing at all but if he does return to edit on other subjects, you can be sure he'll be well aware of all the relevant policies. There is no reason to keep the account blocked; it can only serve to deter the user from contributing constructively in the future. Also, I've seen the deleted page and there is nothing promotional per se about it and it's true what the user says in the unblock request: it was created in the draftspace; the block should've been a simple username block unless I'm missing something. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- What is your interest in this matter? This user is a man who wants to use the name Juliette? If they have no interest in editing, they don't need to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- My interest in the matter is that I was there when the user requested help. And yes, I say "him" because that's the pronoun I prefer. If it's a problem, it's a problem with me, not the user. Blocks are to be used as a preventative measure (WP:BLOCKP) and here there's nothing to prevent other than useful contributions. And yes, they're unlikely to come any time soon but at the same time, the likelihood of any sort of disruption from this user is as low as it's ever going to get for anyone including you and I. I'd say it's not unlikely the user might get a sudden urge to edit constructively, say, a year from now, and having a blocked account in their history could pose a problem. BTW, I'd expect an admin, even a recently appointed one, to understand that there is no such thing as "needing to be unblocked;" there is only "needing to be blocked." Is it necessary for this user to remain blocked? Based on his unblock request, I'd say no, even if you discard every single word I've said as baloney, which you shouldn't do but I do realize I'm just an IP appearing out of the blue. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am willing to unblock(assuming the blocking admin does not object) provided they (and not another party) respond to my question above; if they want to make useful contributions, they need to state what those might be. Part of being unblocked is giving an assurance that whatever led to the block will not recur; part of determining that is knowing what the user intends to do. They are almost to an unblock as they have already stated they will formally comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The unblock request contains information on the user's editing plans already, and I fail to see how they'd be unacceptable if the user's being genuine; developing an article on a soon-to-be-proven-notable (dubious but stranger things have happened) topic while disclosing their COI, etc. sounds good to me. Of course, I already know their actual plans are to simply move on but why take my word over the user's? You're asking a question that's already been answered in the unblock request. Someone less diplomatic than I would likely describe this as an apparent attempt to stall an unblock request till it can be procedurally declined but I know that's not the case even though it looks that way. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I'd prefer to hear from this user. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The unblock request contains information on the user's editing plans already, and I fail to see how they'd be unacceptable if the user's being genuine; developing an article on a soon-to-be-proven-notable (dubious but stranger things have happened) topic while disclosing their COI, etc. sounds good to me. Of course, I already know their actual plans are to simply move on but why take my word over the user's? You're asking a question that's already been answered in the unblock request. Someone less diplomatic than I would likely describe this as an apparent attempt to stall an unblock request till it can be procedurally declined but I know that's not the case even though it looks that way. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am willing to unblock(assuming the blocking admin does not object) provided they (and not another party) respond to my question above; if they want to make useful contributions, they need to state what those might be. Part of being unblocked is giving an assurance that whatever led to the block will not recur; part of determining that is knowing what the user intends to do. They are almost to an unblock as they have already stated they will formally comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- My interest in the matter is that I was there when the user requested help. And yes, I say "him" because that's the pronoun I prefer. If it's a problem, it's a problem with me, not the user. Blocks are to be used as a preventative measure (WP:BLOCKP) and here there's nothing to prevent other than useful contributions. And yes, they're unlikely to come any time soon but at the same time, the likelihood of any sort of disruption from this user is as low as it's ever going to get for anyone including you and I. I'd say it's not unlikely the user might get a sudden urge to edit constructively, say, a year from now, and having a blocked account in their history could pose a problem. BTW, I'd expect an admin, even a recently appointed one, to understand that there is no such thing as "needing to be unblocked;" there is only "needing to be blocked." Is it necessary for this user to remain blocked? Based on his unblock request, I'd say no, even if you discard every single word I've said as baloney, which you shouldn't do but I do realize I'm just an IP appearing out of the blue. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- What is your interest in this matter? This user is a man who wants to use the name Juliette? If they have no interest in editing, they don't need to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've had a chat with the blocked editor via the help channel and after going through Wikipedia's policy on notability, helped the user understand that the software simply doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time. It's unlikely he'll be editing at all but if he does return to edit on other subjects, you can be sure he'll be well aware of all the relevant policies. There is no reason to keep the account blocked; it can only serve to deter the user from contributing constructively in the future. Also, I've seen the deleted page and there is nothing promotional per se about it and it's true what the user says in the unblock request: it was created in the draftspace; the block should've been a simple username block unless I'm missing something. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
globally renamed Clariti (software) to Juliette from Clariti
[edit]globally renamed Clariti (software) to Juliette from Clariti -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)