User talk:Kntdesign
Hello, Kntdesign. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rentech, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't I edit Wikipedia?
Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
- Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?
Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
- What can I do now?
If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
- Add the text
{{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}on your user talk page. - Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
- Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Kntdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I must say that so far, this hasn't been a pleasant experience. We are a design firm that has been hired by Rentech to redesign their website and other materials. Our goal here was merely to make changes to the Rentech page so that it accurately reflected the new lines of business within the company. We are not looking to promote anything. I'm unclear as to why our name would be considered promoting -- we can certainly use a person's name, but decided to use a generic so others within the company could use it as well. I've also been working with the keeper of the Rentech page regarding the changes that should be made to make the page accurate. Please advise... --Kntdesign (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
So apparently a generic company name isn't acceptable, but it appears John at KNT would be fine? Can we do that? I wasn't trying to do anything wrong here... the page we are looking to effect change speaks of a business line that the company no longer supports and again, we are simply looking for an accurate depiction of business lines. Thanks. --Kntdesign (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline: please only have open one request at a time. only (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Glad you seem to have read the policy; yes, that name would be acceptable. But do consider the following query:
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. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Account Rename
[edit]WP:RENAME After reviewing all the terms, conditions and naming rules, can I simply have kntdesign changed to JohnAtKNT? (without the ? of course). Would that work? Then can the block be lifted? To clarify, the information contained within your site is inaccurate and outdated and we are simply looking to update it. We can utilize sources like Business Wire and other electronic sources outside of Rentech to corroborate the changes being made. While we do understand conflict of interest, nothing is being promoted here as you can review the changes that were attempted to the Rentech Page, but we never had the chance to provide any cite links to support the change regarding the sale of one of the business lines. We simply want Wiki to be accurate -- which would seem to be a common goal I would figure. --Kntdesign (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Kntdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
--Kntdesign (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Still blocked
[edit]Kntdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It seems an administrator replied looking for blocked logs?!? Again, very new here. Would simply like to change my ID as I apparently broke several rules with that and return to why I came here initially. The only page I attempted to edit was the Rentech Page -- hope that helps. Kntdesign (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline: please only have open one request at a time. only (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Unblock request revised
[edit]Kntdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Okay... let's try this one last time. I've read the rules and regulations. I've requested that the ID be changed from kntdesign to JohnAtKNT, which seems to abide by your rules. I will be the only user. Regarding edits, at least for now, I am focused on the Rentech page as it is inaccuracies. There is language on the page that suggests the company is doing business that it no longer correct. There are numerous sources, which I can site, outside the company that can be referenced for this change. You can also review the attempted changes to the Rentech Page. Nothing was attempted to promote or otherwise mislead. This was blocked by OrangeMike without taking any time to review the changes attempted, by his or her own admission. As I've stated now at least 3 times, I am simply looking to remove inaccuracies in the current wiki page. If there is another way to go about doing this, please advise. Hopefully this clarifies anything I've said prior that was misleading; while the original intent was for a "group account", I do understand now that this is against your policies. I'm asking that you all understand I've not used your site before and this was simply ignorance, not intentional. Furthermore, I am not part of the corporation in any way, shape, or form -- so the edits are not at the "behest" of the corporation. However, if anyone took the time to read recent press articles released by independent sources, it would become clear that the edits were merely to make your site accurate and not reflective of old language. Thank you. --Kntdesign (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedure close - will address the newest request. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
You state that you are not making the edits at the behest of the corporation, but with this edit summary you explicitly state that you ARE editing on behalf of Rentech. Perhaps you should rethink your unblock request, but I'd suggest reading WP:COI before you do so. Ishdarian 23:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
While I understand what you are saying, I would argue the the change is 1) not promoting in any way and 2) simply corrective in nature. The edits were company requested to simply make your page accurate. So I'm clear Wikipedia would prefer to maintain inaccurate information? I was not malicious to the original article nor disrespectful to any of the "administrators" who continue to block based on partial arguments. It would seem a company would know what lines of business they are in better than any other source and given the recent change in business I would think you would want information to be accurate. So for once please address that direct statement. Also the opening page states that so long as a person discloses who they represent then all is well and good, which I did do in my revision summary. Unfortunately this is not what we are being paid to do but were asked to simply have the page updated to remove the inaccurate content. So how would you suggest we go about that task when your use of terms amendment says this is totally fine? --Kntdesign (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I should disagree how you describe your edits. You said that the company requested to simply make the page accurate by removing inaccurate content. However, you did not explain why the information you removed was inaccurate. It is true that the company has changed its line of business but this is not a valid reason for removing information concerning its previous activities. What you actually did was removing all (referenced) information about once planned but not successfully implemented projects. Fact that the company does not like the content does not make the content inaccurate. What you did is not making the article accurate but making the company history look better, one could say even "whitewashing". This is not the way Wikipedia works and that kind of editing is not tolerated. Also, having COI you are strongly discouraged making edits to the article yourselves but instead of this you should make an edit request at the article's talk page. Of course, this also means that every proposed edit should be explained and to be justified. Beagel (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please re-review
[edit]Kntdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Now I realize I have absolutely nothing else to do and this has become more of a quest at this point. I responded to the last admin, but it seems that my response did not trigger any response back, so I thought resubmitting would cure that ill. So please don't ignore this because I have 2 unblocked requests... a bit hard to get anyone's attention once anyone has responded. I actually took the time to google the issue I'm having to determine if "its just me" or if this is something many others experience -- I'll get to that later. In summary, here is what we are looking at and I would greatly appreciate someone looking at ALL that I'm putting here rather than snippets. I'm taking the time to explain, so I'm only asking that someone take the time to read all of it although unfortunately it appears I get someone new every single time. I'm sure I'm not the only person who realizes the same reviewer would make this a much easier and streamline process. However, I digress... more to the point... - I joined Wikipedia at the request of a client (and I'd like to stress, not being paid for this part of the job) to simply correct some incorrect statements on your site. You can review my edits to Rentech and judge for yourself. Yes, this can appear a conflict of interest; HOWEVER, given the information corrected is neutral, it is within your guidelines that you state.
- I marked the edits with the fact that I/we are close to the client, but I would like to stress that the company would understand its lines of business better than anyone here. I mean no disrespect by this statement and we are certainly not marketing anything through Wiki; however Rentech is exiting the alternative or renewable energy business and this can be verified by numerous outside sources.
- I am new here. I now know you cannot have a group login -- this was the original intent and I never tried to hide that fact. However I have requested a different ID and said I would be the only person doing actual edits. This doesn't mean I wouldn't discuss the edits with others before making them; hence "we". Your rules do not state I must work in a vacuum. So I've read everything that each admin has asked me to read.
- One of the admins used the term "behest", which I assumed to mean being paid or controlled by an external source, or in this case, the company. We were asked to correct incorrect information. If that is "behesting", then I guess that is what we are doing. But again, I stress, the information being corrected or posted is neutral and again, would seem to follow your guidelines.
So all that said, it would be very helpful if one of two things would occur here. Either 1) someone would take the time to explain to me how my edits are problematic other than hiding behind COI given they are neutral and factual and 2) what it will take to remove the block from my account. I mentioned earlier that I read a number of articles about this site and found that new authors are typically discouraged from contributing for a variety of reasons. Last I checked, given Wiki would like to be the source of accurate information, I would ask that whomever reads this please realize we are only looking to correct outdated information. As I've explained prior, I could not source the information as my edits were reversed several times before I realized I wasn't going crazy and someone was actually reversing my edits WITHOUT REVIEWING THEM. Did I mention that? Yeah... Perhaps we could discuss this over the phone or email where we could actually just have a conversation because I have to say, this method of communication, especially when blocked, is about 2 steps above sending smoke signals. Honestly, I'm frustrated at how nuts it seems to be able to post a simple correction. In the event that you or your "group" determine I am still unfit for making said edits, I would ask you to let me know how I can "suggest" what edits should be made. I would think Business Wire, the SEC, and other independent sources would be considered credible and for the 30 people who follow Rentech on your site, we simply want them to have non-conflicting information. I apologize for the length of this post, but I thought I would get everything out in the open and I hope that whoever is reading this actually made it to the end. Thank you for your time. --Kntdesign (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Couple things to note here:
- (1) When you correct the inaccurate information, you should also include the sources of the information that you are using; templates such as {{cite web}} helps with that.
- (2) Part of the reason why you are blocked is due to your username. You must use {{unblock-un}} for that, since we must change your username.
Thus, I am procedurally declining this request. Please use the unblock-un template to address the username issue.- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Unblock user change request
[edit]Kntdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason: