User talk:Pczeno

January 2017

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to AcceleDent. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You are welcome to add new material to the article if it is cited to reliable third-party sources (see WP:RS), but you must not rewrite the article to turn it into a company PR piece. You should also read WP:COI if you have any connection to the company or its products. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my warning message, above, read Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sourcing for articles (at WP:RS) and conflict of interest (at WP:COI). When you understand those, please feel free to make an unblock request as directed in the block message, and be sure to state clearly whether or not you have any connection with the company or its products. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked more closely at that article and I read the cited source, and that source contains no mention of the device itself - and so I have removed it and the claims it was used to support. My concern now is that we do not have evidence that the device satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements (see WP:N) in order to justify an article at all, and so I have proposed it for deletion. If nobody disputes that proposal, the article will be deleted no sooner than seven days from now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 14 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was trying to explain the same thing that you discovered - namely that the "source" article has nothing to do with acceledent. also many of the things you've mentioned in your exchange above are simply not true. just trying to understand how Wikipedia works - is the goal to get to better content?trish zenobi 15:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason you were blocked, which is for violations of WP:SOCK, WP:SPAM, and WP:PROMO. Yamla (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2017 (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.

And actually, the source article does appear to be relevant to AcceleDent, as the newest and more generalized version of the article hopefully makes clear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just as fyi - acceledent has 15 peer reviewed clinical articles including 3 randomized control studies.

You have not disclosed your company nor who you are work for.

They were covered in one recent Cochrane review. The company will need to convince Cochrane with their evidence when Cochrane does an update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]