User talk:Travis Kline

January 2015

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"special blend of simplicity, versatility, and classic couture while always staying on trend", "unique yet simplistic jewelry at affordable price", "Fashion and creativity have always been part of her life", "Lisa also has proven sucess"

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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry you think I am trying to spam, promote or advertise the article I have been trying to submit. But Wikipedia is the least user friendly service I have ever used. And every time I add something to the talk page to try and discuss why the article has been deleted, the talk gets deleted too and I can never get a human response from anyone! This is getting so frustrating! I don't deserve to be blocked and I would instead like some actual help from someone in what I can do to get my article approved! Travis Kline (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you really sincerely did not intend what you wrote to be promotional, then you are so completely blind to the nature of what you write that you are unlikely ever to be able to edit in the neutral way needed for Wikipedia. What you wrote was unadulterated advertising copy form start to finish. Here are just a few samples of your writing: "special blend of simplicity, versatility, and classic couture while always staying on trend", "unique yet simplistic jewelry [sic] at affordable price", "Fashion and creativity have always been part of her life", "Lisa also has proven sucess [sic]". All that is pure marketing-speak. You have received numerous messages on this page explaining that what you wrote was unacceptable because Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion, and yet you simply repeatedly posted the same stuff again and again, to a large extent using the same words, making no attempt to make it less promotional. The answer to "what [you] can do to get [your] article approved" is that you can't. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service for marketing/PR people to use to promote their clients. It seems to me that your use of the words "service I have ever used" in referring to Wikipedia is indicative of your approach: you came here thinking of Wikipedia as a service that you could use to further your own commercial aims; that is not what Wikipedia is, and those of us who contribute to it do so to help Wikipedia, not to make Wikipedia help us. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2015 (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.

For a start, Wikipedia is NOT a 'service'. It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or social media where you can post advertising and promote things. The other article you refer to is neutrally worded, unlike your attempts (but your last one does show less PR department talk than earlier ones). And also please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All the tagging and deletion was by humans apart from a tag by CorenBot of a suspected copyright violation (that and the majority of other bots cannot delete or block) and the reasons for deletion are shown on the 'red banner of doom' that comes up when you try to access a deleted page. You need to study the style of writing in other articles, and compare that with the style and wording you have used. Read WP:BIO and note that notability does not cascade down, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove it. Profiles and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Nor are Facebook etc, blogs (with a few exceptions like the Huffington Post), forums, mentions in lists (for the purposes of notability), wikis, IMDb, Twitter etc. Peridon (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if you are being paid to make these edits or are doing it as part of your job, please note that a declaration should be made to this effect. I have a feeling that this might well be the case. Peridon (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]