User talk:Splavins

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Splavins, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve David Van Wie[edit]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Splavins, thanks for creating David Van Wie!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please remove all the promotional waffle and pointless references, duplicated references and please clearly demonstrate why Van Wie meets WP:NOTABILITY and use reliable third party sources to do so. If it cannot, this article may be proposed for deletion. I suggest you expand the article on Intertrust with content from this one, and maybe a redirect would be an alternative to deletion. None of the references ostensibly supporting statements about awards mention either the man or the company, so I can't see why they are in there. This seems a wholly promotional article. Please would you indicate on your talk page whether you are receiving payment for creating this article? See WP:PAID. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are by any chance connected to the subject somehow, it's important to note WP:Paid is a Terms of Use policy that cannot be negotiated. Your page is currently highly promotional either focusing in a personal website-like appearance and the sources, wherever published, are still only announcements, notices or similar. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splavins, please stop reinserting the same puffed-up text. Encyclopedic articles need to be terse, factual, and based on reliable and independent sources. What the page most needs is references supporting his career specifically. (This is also the main way in which Wikipedia assesses notability.) In particular, I went through the citations about the Apple lawsuit and not a mention of his name. And the Sococo website (which was agonizing to load) doesn't list him. Where is his current executive profile, and can you add news sources specifically about him? I am about to search again, having found and used Bloomberg, which is however out of date. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to David Van Wie while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Splavins. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article David Van Wie, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, you appear to be socking and edit warring at the same time, all the while promoting the subject of that article. I'm this close to blocking you indefinitely and locking those articles. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say I didn't warn you. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 3 July 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).

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

Request reason:

This is my first time making a Wikipedia page and I didn’t understand that I had to collaborate on this article with the editors. I assumed that Wikipedia (like a lot of websites) had a trolling problem and if I made my article better it would stop being flagged by other Wikipedia users. I took a look at Drmies page and thought I was being targeted by trolls so I logged out to continue my work and I didn’t see any more messages. I wasn’t trying to be insulting, I just wanted to avoid conflict. In hindsight, I should’ve looked much closer at my talk page, but I am learning as I go and the YouTube tutorials that I watched didn’t focus on my talk page or the sandbox feature. I want to follow the rules and answer all your questions as best I can, I just thought I could do that by fixing my article myself. Sorry for the confusion, I am just a beginner!

Also, I am connected to David through work but I am choosing to write this article in my spare time. Although I work as a social media contractor at his current company, I am not being paid to write this article.

David has a following in the patent and technology community for a few reasons; I think he’s most well known for founding new branches of computer science related to the “big book” patent, which is one of the most cited patents in USPTO history. I think InterTrust’s acquisition and later success, his participation in both the Microsoft and Apple litigations, and his ongoing participation in the tech community makes him noteworthy as well. David’s patents are used in the underlying infrastructure of every smart phone; the smart phone would not have happened without these patents. David is a private person, but I think his story is an interesting part of history and I think it should be included in the encyclopedia. I have been modeling this Wikipedia page after some of the pages on the prolific inventors list. Here is what I was comparing my article to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunpei_Yamazaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kia_Silverbrook

I don’t want to promote the subject too much, but I also think there are obvious positive implications about this person given their achievements. I am totally willing to edit, collaborate or explain any of my choices in this article, I just didn’t understand the process.Splavins (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. New unblock request posted below. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:20, 25 July 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.

This unlikely story doesn't really address "process", nor do I believe that a social media professional would think we were simply a directory instead of a collaborative encyclopedia. There's plenty of talk page messages here; surely not all of the other four editors are trolls. Editor could have clicked on any of these links. I did, by the way, click on those article links, and have pruned those promotional articles quite a bit. Drmies (talk) 12:10, 5 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I addressed the process issue in paragraphs 1,3 and 4 of my unblock request. I’m new to Wikipedia but I did assume that editors would get involved. Clearly, YouTube tutorials should emphasize the importance of the talk page (and they don’t). After seeing some criticism on the user page that was not factual I checked your profile. The quote from the dark knight and the large, strange picture of an ostrich created an impression, in my mind as a social media professional, that you were a troll and not an encyclopedia editor. I notice you have removed your dark knight quote from your profile which should help create a better impression for new users. You may want to rethink the ostrich photo as well. I may have made a mistake, but it was an honest mistake based on what I saw and my experience using online services. I have done a great deal of original research for this article that is not collected anywhere else (see https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/alife/0262290758chap144.pdf, see table 2 where the Big Book patent is referred the as a “superstar”). Researchers use Wikipedia for that type of encyclopedia function all the time. Given all of the changes you made to the two profiles that I used as guides, it would be impossible for a first-time user to appreciate how the standard is really applied in published entries. Splavins (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is already an open unblock request. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:50, 14 July 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.

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

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

UTRS appeal #18724 was submitted on Jul 13, 2017 01:03:06. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:03, 13 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I’m a new user trying to remove a block on my account. I tried to work it out with the editors and explain that I was learning as I went and made a mistake, but he responded with a non-specific criticism and is now ignoring my request to appeal the block. I also tried to file an appeal with the unblock ticket request system and provided some detail about my situation. I’d like to know what else I can do to remove the block because the blocking admin has stopped responding. Please advise Splavins (talk) 9:51 pm, 14 July 2017, Friday (11 days ago) (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

Sorry for waiting. It's not blocking admin's guilt. Unblock request should ideally be reviewed by another admin. In your requests you said that you are connected to David Van Wie and that, if unblocked, you plan to continue editing about him. Here in Wikipedia, WP:COI editing is strongly discouraged. I can't unblock you if your main goal is to edit contrary to WP:COI. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 25 July 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.