User talk:Sara3501

AfC notification: User:Sara3501/GlassQube Coworking has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Sara3501/GlassQube Coworking. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Sara3501/GlassQube Coworking has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Sara3501/GlassQube Coworking. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Sara3501/GlassQube Coworking[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Sara3501/GlassQube Coworking, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and using multiple accounts[edit]

Hi Sara3501, some weeks ago you were given some information about how to edit Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest. Since you removed that info from your talk page, you have to be aware of it; please comply with it, as well, in particular with this which is required.

Secondly, your edits are identical to those by Raad15214. Are both accounts yours? Please see this information - the use of multiple accounts is normally disallowed on Wikipedia. If you are two different people working for the company in question, then the COI/paid editing related information above applies equally to both of you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Sara3501 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22008 was submitted on Jul 08, 2018 05:58:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2018 (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).

Sara3501 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've learned my lesson, I understand that the way I was writing was promotional and that is not accepted with Wikipedia. I will not be writing or submitting articles in the same way I did previously. I did my research and read the guidelines and I can assure you I won't be causing any issues or writing in a promotional manner. Please consider this, thank you.

Decline reason:

You seem to think the problem is only your violations of WP:PROMO. But you've also been violating WP:COI and WP:PAID, and indicate that the only reason you plan to abide by these is that the page is protected. That you request the page be unprotected so other people can violate WP:COI and WP:PAID shows we can't unblock you at this time. Yamla (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2018 (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.

Do you agree to not edit about GlassQube Coworking if unblocked? If so, what do you intend to edit about? You will also need to formally comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop editing that page (it is currently protected) however I still won't make any attempts at creating or editing that page. I wanted to create that page however I learned that it won't be possible since I don't have proper references. I would like to kindly request to remove the protection from that page as I do not want to ruin it for the business owners that will one day want to create a page for their company GlassQube Coworking. I might make minor contributions on Wikipedia in the future however as of now I won't be making or creating any pages. Thanks for you consideration and response, I appreciate it.

I fully understand your reasons and I may not have worded my explanation correctly but I am fully aware of the mistakes I've made and the violations I've committed. As I previously stated I will not edit or create GlassQube Coworking. Thanks for your time.

Aside from Yamla's comment declining your request, you will also need to address Bonadea's comment above about the nature of your relationship to Raad15214. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. user Raad15214 is a friend of mine who also attempted to create the page GlassQube Coworking, we were both new users so we were not fully aware of the fact that 2 users cannot create the same page using the same text. After reading the rules and guidelines we are now aware that we cannot be publishing the same text. Thanks again for your consideration.

Please note that your unblock request was declined above. You are free to make another, but you will need to address their concerns. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already mentioned that I fully understand that the way I was writing the page was promotional and there was a case of conflict of interest, however I do not understand the paid contribution part? As I previously stated I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't receive or expect to receive money for contributing to Wikipedia. I don't understand where that claim came from, I admit to all the other violations because I've read the guidelines and understand them but not the paid contribution part. Thanks for your time. Sara3501 (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you explicitly claiming you are not employed by GlassQube Coworking? That you are not the Community Manager there? If you are employed by GlassQube Coworking, I don't understand how you can claim you are not paid. --Yamla (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. All that you've said it true and I've already admitted to WP:COI WP:PROMO as I was writing for the company I work for. However I do not get paid to create Wikipedia pages, it was one of my first attempts and as a beginner I wasn't aware of the rules. My employer does not pay me to create Wikipedia pages, it is not part of my job. Thanks for understanding. Sara3501 (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps by the letter of WP:PAID you don't need to formally comply with it, but I think you need to comply with its spirit. Most if not all users will see your situation as a distinction without a difference. WP:PAID is not just about direct payments for edits, but about judging conflict of interest by other editors. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for clarifying. Sara3501 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GlassQube Coworking[edit]

@RHaworth: Hi. I am currently blocked, and a page I've tried to create (repeatedly) was protected by you GlassQube Coworking understandably. As you can probably see, I've tried to get the block removed however got rejected. I've stated that I am fully aware of the mistakes I've committed and I'm not denying any. When I first started creating the pages I didn't do my research and didn't know there were so many rules when it comes to creating in Wikipedia. I understand that you've protected the page because I've tried to create it repeatedly and was being spammy. However may I kindly ask you to please remove the protection off GlassQube Coworking. (I can remain blocked if that will verify to you that I will not attempt to create the page again). The reason I'm asking you to please remove the protection is because it is a company and I am the reason it is protected due to my negligence. Please advise. Thanks in advance and look forward to hearing from you. Sara3501 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In order to actually make this sort of request, you need to get unblocked first and then visit WP:RUP. That said, there is no need to unprotect the article title until someone attempts or asks to write about it with sufficient independent reliable sources that indicate how WP:ORG is met. It's unlikely that any person associated with the company (such as its owners that you mention above) will be allowed to do so. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as Yamla states above, you will not be unblocked so you can allow others to violate the same policies you have. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Sara3501 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that someone with no CoI thinks that the activities of you and your fellow cow orkers are notable they can create an article at draft: GlassQube Coworking (2). In the even more unlikely event that the draft gets accepted, unprotection of the mainspace article will be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]