User talk:DavidAtAtllas

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post 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. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
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.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

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|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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly Unblocked

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).

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

Request reason:

My account was wrongly blocked by user: Jimfbleak He claims my username promotes a company, but on the contrary what it does is inform anyone that my edits to the Atllas page are from an Atllas employee, and should therefore be scrutinized for potential bias. Wikipedia rules even states that this username is valid and acceptable. "However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc." I don't see how "Mark at WidgetsUSA" is any different than "DavidAtAtllas" DavidAtAtllas (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your username is fine, but you must address your promotional editing. Declaring your COI does not give you license to spam. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2022 (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.

Jimfbleak Did you mean this as just a plain promotional block? 331dot (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, the article was blatant spam, with no actual facts about the company, evidence of how it meets [[WP:Notability (organizations and companies, and no independent third-party sources. However, I didn't block for the right reason, blatant spamming. I'll leave it to you whether you want to change the indef block to reflect that or give the user one more chance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, as far as I know, my only post from this account is a draft. And this draft only states facts about the company. when it was founded, who the founder is, that it's a real estate agency, it's based in California, their business model is one time fee instead of the industry standard of commission percentage. I don't understand how any of those aren't facts. As far as independent third-party sources goes, that would be why my only post, as far as I understand wikipedia posting, is only a draft. From my perspective, I made the account, typed up a bit, had to go so I saved it as a draft, and then Jimfbleak completely blocks my account on false pretenses, mentioning nothing about the article. It seems like he's moving the goal posts now that he realizes he was wrong. If I am misunderstanding what a draft is on wikipedia, please send me a link so I can learn more about it as I have absolutely no intent of spamming wikipedia, and only intent to increase it's knowledge base of facts. It is intended to be an encyclopedia, even if you don't like the facts, it should still have them.

I also made sure to follow all rules when posting for a business you are getting paid by. Including adding this to my userpage "This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Atllas, Inc. for their contributions to Wikipedia.". Wikipedia clearly states that you can post about a company you're getting paid by, and even states that if you do so you have to do your best to be unbiased. They wouldn't say that if posting about a company you're paid by was against the rules. DavidAtAtllas (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the information is factual. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. If you can do that, while setting aside everything you know about your company and all materials put out by the company (the company website, press releases, announcements of routine business activities) I would consider removing the block. In my experience most people in your position have great difficulty with that, but it is possible. Specifically, if your claim of the company's notability is that they have a unique business model, you need independent sources that say that, and they must have noticed it on their own. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that there needs to be changes to the wikipedia wizard when creating a page, as I answered every question truthfully and it only told me to try my best to be unbiased. I think your response should be added at that step. I'll accept that the wizard is wrong since your statements are well written and do make complete sense. However, I would like my account not banned so when someone else makes this article in the future I can use this DavidAtAtllas account to make edits of any facts they may omit, such as founder, founding location, founding date, public vs private, etc... That way moderators will know that those edits need to be scrutinized since they will be first party edits. DavidAtAtllas (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find my post to delete it. Maybe that's because I'm currently banned. DavidAtAtllas (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard isn't necessarily wrong, but what I said is just another way to say it. However, your suggestions for improvements would be welcome. It is hard for people to see their own biases sometimes. You are correct that it is not against policy to contribute in the area of one's conflict of interest, but it must be done in the correct manner- summarizing independent reliable sources. We usually recommend that all editors first spend time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You may find the new user tutorial helpful.

I will remove the block for a second chance. You may want to familiarize yourself with the edit request process. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]