User talk:Surfacepreptech

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Surfacepreptech, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

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 want corrections and improvements to be made, or concerns to be considered, we will always take seriously reports about possible unlawful content, defamation, minors at risk, copyright violation, and privacy breach. However any other requests must meet our content policies - we won't consider requests if not. As a simple guide, changes of a promotional nature are almost always refused, but genuine errors, omissions, unbalanced and non-neutral coverage, and outdated facts may sometimes be accepted if other editors agree with you.

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.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

your reason here :

1) my original entries on Wikipedia were made relatively quickly, in order to correct some unqualified and inadequate information in the earlier entries by others on the subject of "tack cloth". I did not review nor realize the policies that I might have violated to cause this block, and would not have guessed in quick passing that any blatant commercialism would against policy (that is, I would not have understood the page purpose correctly at that time). However, please note that I have no idea now what I wrote on my user page some 7 years ago, and apparently cannot view that writing now. So I can't now have a clear understanding of it was that may have violated policies. I would happily review the policy and write a simple, appropriate page (and gladly submit a draft for qualified review if possible -- which begs the question, why are users not warned to correct violations before being blocked?). 2) If my user page was, in fact, blatantly commercial, then it was due to lack of understanding of the page purpose here. I may well have written an intentionally commercial entry out of naivete (such as a company page on eBay, for instance). However, practitioners of the industry art in "tack cloth" will recognize my contributions on the actual topic to be neutral, valid and substantive. 3) I am uncommonly qualified to write about "tack cloth", as a recognized industry expert with 40 years of specialization in the "tack cloth" industry and with a record of industry-changing product innovation. It is not my intent, nor do I need, to slant the contribution here to my business. I simply want the topic to reflect accurate, substantive and helpful information. I'm not aware of any contemporary publication anywhere that comes close to the quality of information that I've contributed here. 4) My editorial contributions to trade publications are necessarily neutral, substantive, and valid (passing publisher edits, and subject to peer review) as was intended for the contribution here. As such, my trade publications would support my position here. 5) There is a genuine need for well-qualified contributions on the topic "tack cloth", as the common knowledge is fraught with misunderstandings and insufficient information (I can cite numerous examples).

I'm not sure how I may know that this "unblock" request will be seen, reviewed and acted upon. I'd ask for acknowledgement to my email jjLyman@prodigy.net and would welcome questions. Surfacepreptech (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Jimfbleak unblocked you, but it seems he forgot to mark this request as accepted, so I'm just doing that. — Earwig ^talk 23:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've unblocked you, but please read the following carefully.

Your user page is for you to tell us about your interests, work on Wikipedia and the like, not to advertise your business or link to your own website.
Use of a company or product name as a user name is forbidden, follow the link to the policy in the box above. You were blocked because you violated that policy and also posted spam on your user page. Your unblock request would have been picked up soon since it automatically notifies interested admins. However, I saw your email first. Since your company seems to be just you, I've decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and viewed it as a personal account. I strongly suggest that you create a new account with a less contentious name to avoid further problems.
Your user page was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: an expert... 40 years of specialization... More information about this user can be found on web page... followed by a spam link to your site. This is unacceptable whether in article space or on a user page.
If you write about yourself or your company in any way again, I will reblock you, and the good will of a new year might have worn off by then.
I have no idea what the tack cloth stuff is about

If there is anything above you aren't clear about, or if you have any questions, please post on my talk page (I don't reply directly to emails, and I'm not going to phone from the UK) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at Tack cloth now, please view my edits and look at the history for the relevant edit summaries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More

I saw your instruction to contact you on your talk page, but I'm not exactly sure how to post an "edit" there correctly—I'm watching this page now, so you can post here. I will know you have done more quickly so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it.
It seems also that it would be prudent for me to have an administrator (you?) preview a draft of a new user page—you can post a draft here or via email and I will be happy to comment
You quote my original user page that was deleted. I'll ask again how I can see that original posting so that I can better understand what may be unacceptable.— SurfacePrepTech is a an expert in Tack Cloth (products, technologies, applications) with nearly 40 years of specialization in the industry. More information about this user can be found on web page' —plus a link to your site
It looks like I would have written my user page as I do for other boards, citing my background, qualifications, references (e.g., additional information on my web site), etc. to underwrite my "expertise".— That's exactly what not to do here. Any such work/expertise related comment will be viewed as self-promotion.
My user name here is generally descriptive of my interest and work, as it relates to the topic at hand. I would not assume, and don't quite see, that it is necessarily commercial. If you require that I create a new user name, I have no choice but to comply. But the rationale is not clear.—it looks like a company name. I won't press the point, but it's possible that another editor might make that assumption too
Lastly... how does a reader of a Wiki entry judge the validity of a topic editor's entry, if the reader can't know anything about the contributor's knowledge of the topic?—Wikipedia does not accept original research, so the question doesn't arise. We need independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify facts. If you have been published in such sources, for example peer-reviewed journals, you can use those as references. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to a contributor, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting company or individual claims.
The above may seem strange to you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which reports existing knowledge that can be sourced to verifiable independent third-party sources. Direct reference to you or your company doesn't meet this requirement. You can't be a self-appointed expert, whatever your qualifications or experience, we need reliable sources as defined above. Tack cloth is low profile, but just think what would happen if we let people loose on Palestine or Barack Obama without the need to provide genuinely independent references, rather than their own "expertise". I suspect that Mr Trump might claim to be an expert on these.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that the point of speedy deletion is that it is such a clear breach of our policies that discussion isn't needed. Deleted pages can always be retrieved, and deleted articles are often restored to a user subpage on request, so nothing is necessarily lost for ever Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]