User talk:YoungerBloke

This is YoungerBloke's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vectrix (April 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vectrix and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vectrix, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YoungerBloke! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Vectrix has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Vectrix. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vectrix (cybersecurity company) (April 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vectrix (cybersecurity company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vectrix (cybersecurity company), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Vectrix (cybersecurity company)[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 Draft:Vectrix (cybersecurity company), 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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Was blocked for being an 'undisclosed paid editor', which I am not. I am trying to contribute information that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Decline reason:

I would like to know what areas other than cybersecurity you would edit in, as you likely won't be able to edit in the that area in the short term. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (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.

How did you come to write about this company? For a new editor, your very first edit was extremely well done. 331dot (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thank you; I simply referenced other similar software companies to see proper formatting/details. I am writing about this company as someone who works in industry and finds the company interesting and notable. I anticipate writing about other, like companies as well.YoungerBloke (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you work in the industry, please review conflict of interest(and/or this plain language explanation of it) and explain how your contributions will be consistent with that policy. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thank you for the clarification and assistance. With regards to potential COI, I am an unaffiliated individual that works in the same industry (cybersecurity). I plan to leverage unbiased sources on the topic(s) to show alignment with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and submit draft proposals in a neutral way, requesting editor assistance where uncertain. Further, disclosing these same details where appropriate. YoungerBloke (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like other administrators to offer their views; they may also take action if they wish without consulting me, but if none does, I will come back. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hello, I just wanted to see if there was any update on this? Thank you in advance. YoungerBloke (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Younger Bloke. I notice that your very first edit here was correctly formatted throughout, which is very unusual for a new editor. Have you contributed here under a different user name before? If so, you must tell us. There are problems with your draft, but they are a lack of genuine independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines (Unlikely for a company founded in 2020), and the tone which is basically "this is what we sell" rather than real facts about the company. I'm happy for 331dot to make the call on whether or not you should be unblocked, but even if you are, you will need to produce something more convincing than the previous effort. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to know that as well. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak and 331dot, this has been "on hold" for a while. If I see correctly, YoungerBloke is currently not interested in doing anything else than creating new articles about this or other companies in the same industry. While their promise to disclose their work area when editing about such articles seems to be commendable, I'd rather say it's an alarming sign that such disclosures are expected to be needed for future contributions. I personally would prefer the user to stay far away from the area that led to the block, both for trust reasons (the block reason shows severe distrust to a degree that led to a block; the points raised in the unblock discussion about possible sockpuppetry don't improve the trust either) and for neutrality reasons. If you agree, please mark the request as "declined for now", and if it's just for the lack of response to the last question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree, as the blocking admin, I don't think it's appropriate for me to decline an unblock request , happy to leave that to others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, sorry, that part of my message was primarily intended for 331dot. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]