User talk:4Melanie

Reply
Thanks for email. You say that you have no conflict of of interest, yet your very first and only contribution here is a full-length article about this company written in company talk ("solutions" and "offers", nothing so grubby as "products" or "selling").

It's largely sourced to company press releases, interviews and the company itself, rather than the independent verifiable sources, needed to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

It's a classic company promo: Our products solutions - Our History - Our Awards (none notable enough to be linked to a Wikipedia article), but the company appears to have no mention in the main text of any headquarters, number of employees, income or expenditure. The tone is unrelentingly promotional. In just the first sentence we get a leading European provider of easy-to-use security solutions for secure identification and verification.

It concerns me that you say that if you are unblocked you intend to continue to work on this promo, while the best way to show that you really have no COI is to walk away from it and write something unrelated to this company. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jimfbleak for the quick reply. Through the factual reasoning I can now understand your reaction. I would like to learn from the unfortunately justified criticism and strictly adhere to the guidelines of Wikipedia in the future. I am not an experienced editor, but a beginner, but willing to learn and ask for the lifting of the block, since there was no conflict of interest. If I am allowed to touch the Signicat contribution again, it will definitely not become a promotion. I promise that!

Thank you very much.

4Melanie (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 331dot, considering a full-length article with properly formatted references and infobox was this user's very first edit, and she formatted an unblock request before I said how to do it, she is either a very fast learner, or there is some other non-disclosure here too Jimfbleak - talk to me?  18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. 4Melanie, your chance of being unblocked is close to zero until and unless you are completely honest with us.  331dot (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the frank words, I basically appreciate that. I understand that I wrote a contribution as a first work for the English Wikipedia, which turned out too marketing-heavy. That was a mistake and I absolutely understand that it makes you suspicious. I struggled with the Wikipedia formatting for many hours, although I strictly followed a template from a similarly oriented company where a good friend worked. I simply copied a reference and modified it. And the formatting of an unblock request is really well described now. So to question my sincerity is clearly going too far. Once again, I assure you that I drafted the post about Signicat in my spare time and unpaid. That's it with my "Wikipedia career"... Too bad. Nevertheless: I learned something again. Although I am very disappointed now, I wish you all the best, especially health. Bye.4Melanie (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)