User talk:Sttlaw

ZYP Coatings (company) moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to ZYP Coatings. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. SilverLocust 💬 04:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to revise the writing. This is citing sources and is intended to be an informational article about the company. 96.60.55.58 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ZYP Coatings (August 3)[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 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.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ZYP Coatings and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sttlaw! Having an article draft 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! Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong: I am trying to edit some articles and add this company page. But, I seem to keep getting rejections. I thought I was doing it right because I am citing patents, academic articles, etc. I am truly not sure why I cannot publish a new page. These seem to be very good sources without bias. Sttlaw (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles not pages, you have not addressed the appearance of being a paid editor and please note that patents confer zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not directly or indirectly compensated for making edits to Wikipedia. Sttlaw (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing[edit]

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Sttlaw, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sttlaw|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 18:53, 7 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and did not try to violate any rules. I practiced editing on some pages and was planning to create some new articles for businesses in my area that are doing some interesting work. I was also planning to make some articles for private schools and other businesses that are important to the community. It is a little challenging to learn everything and I wasn't trying to be difficult. With that said, I read over the block criteria and will address the points: (1) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead: I understand that the ZYP Coatings article appeared to be overly promotional and administrators felt that I may have been paid for it. I did not intend to violate rules and will comply with Wikipedia's rules so that I make very productive contributions. Right now, I am a Yelp Elite reviewer and Amazon Vine reviewer. So, I have a lot of experience with reviews and articles. I think I can do a good job here. For the ZYP Coatings article, I am fine if that needs to be deleted. I can just work on edits to existing pages. But, my goal was to write up something that ties into journals or references that show why the company has significance in the community or in technology. Likewise, I think I can do a good job writing about some important legal decisions and technology. My employment is as a lawyer licensed in multiple states. So, that is my area of expertise. (2)that the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. I think the block was not "necessary" because I was willing to talk and correct the issues. By your term, "necessary," that implies that Wikipedia had no other option. But, my own conduct shows that I was responsive and willing to work. Indeed, Wikipedia's own page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy) says the following: "Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future." In my case, that is what happened. Also, the Wikipedia policy says that blocks should not be used to punish. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy In short, I am a new user and should be entitled to deference because of Wikipedia's policy. I am willing to be part of this community and contribute (as I have done on Yelp and Amazon). Sttlaw (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Please only have one open unblock request at a time. Z1720 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2023 (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.

Editing on Wikipedia is different from writing reviews on Yelp or Amazon: we have different rules on what kind of language is acceptable and what information we are looking for. Furthermore, while editors are willing to help new users (especially at the WP:TEAHOUSE) there is an expectation that editors will fulfil a level of competency so that other editors will not have to spend extra time fixing their edits (WP:CIR). With this in mind, please answer the following questions:

What is promotional language and why is it not allowed on Wikipedia? (WP:PROMO)
Do you have a conflict of interest with ZYP Coatings? This can include a personal connection to the company, being an employee of the company, or being paid to create a Wikipedia article for them (WP:COI and WP:COIE have more information about this).

I look forward to your response. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point about Yelp and Amazon is that I have written content to help others. All platforms have rules. I get that.

I have read Wikipedia’s rules on promotional language that you shared. My mistake was not being objective enough. For instance, “Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.”

Based on the conflict of interest policy, I may have a conflict because I am related to people who work at ZYP Coatings and know a lot about the company because of this. I can disclose this in my profile per Wikipedia’s rules to resolve the issue.

I hope this helps clear things up. I certainly respect that you are trying to keep order and avoid wasting time. Thanks. Sttlaw (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look through your edits and have some questions below:

What is the difference between primary and secondary sources, and why does Wikipedia prefer secondary sources? (WP:PRIMARY)
Why should places that most readers will recognise not be wikilinked? (MOS:OVERLINK)
If I unblocked you, I would place a topic ban on your ability to create or edit any articles related to ZYP Coatings. Do you agree to this stipulation?

I look forward to your responses. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are one step removed from the event. In other words, they cite a primary source.

Overlinks are not necessary for the reader's understanding. Therefore, it is better to avoid linking things that most readers understand.

For ZYP Coatings: I would prefer that I simply make whatever disclosure is required by Wikipedia and I follow the guidelines strictly. If that means putting something in my bio, I'll do that. But, I think it is more fair if I am not restricted. For instance, I may want to write about other companies in my town such as the new Marble City Market in Knoxville. I want to learn to do this in a way that complies with the rules and doesn't result in getting banned on topics. Sttlaw (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to these questions. I am not a checkuser or on ArbCom; since you have now been blocked with technical evidence, I am unable to effectively evaluate this request. I am keeping the unblock request below open and another administrator is invited to evaluate. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Anne Barrington per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anne Barrington. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have nothing to do with that user and no idea who that is. You can see from my email and IP who I am. Also, as you can see from my responses, I am not some sort of bot or spammer. I am able to converse with you on specific issues and respond to the complaints. So, I am not sure why there is such a strong opposition to my limited postings on here. Also, per the "guide to appealing blocks," there is good reason to remove the block. I agree to make productive contributions, follow the rules, and make the required disclosed. Sttlaw (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical evidence(available only to checkusers) has confirmed a link between you and the other accounts described on the SPI. It's entirely possible that you may not know who operated those accounts, but that does not preclude a connection. Either someone educated you heavily or this isn't your first go at editing, as you gamed the system(which exists for a reason) to get your 10 edits to be autoconfirmed, and made some very advanced edits for an inexperienced user. Until you are completely honest with us and/or figure out why you might be connected to other accounts, there is no pathway forward here, and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2023 (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.