User talk:Energized Glass

October 2013
Hello, Energized Glass. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. SFK2 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if you post links to your own websites (or your company's websites), it is a total conflict of interest. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, apart from the worries about spam, if you link to your site it can be regarded as original research WP:OR. OK, you might might know more than anyone about it - but to avoid problems, we like to have things in independent places. We might miss out on a few, but we gain on the majority by using this approach. Look at it like this: you're taking on a new employee. OK, do you believe him that he's the best fitter since King Dick? Or do you ask him for references (and discard the ones from his brother)? (You can also give him a practical test - we can't do that.) Peridon (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

OK then. Can I reference work produced by Energy Consultants and Architects that may not be available on a web-site and simply describe it as best I can? Also, how do you reconcile references 5 and 6 which are direct to the companies promoting a similiar product
 * You don't have to post a new request for a query. And please sign talk posts with four ~ things. Sounds silly, but it's a code that says 'put my sig and the datestamp'. If the stuff is verifiable, it could be OK. The stuff must be available somewhere - so that someone can check. They mightn'y do it, but the verifiability has to be there just in case WP:V. (Reputable printed stuff can be OK, but not things like The Little Ywittering in the Bushes Broadsheet - issue 1, October 9th 1013...). See WP:RS. If there's nothing reliable, independent and not really trying to sell things, then it's too soon. We're very patient here (OK, some of us, most of the time...) and prefer to wait for verifiability to arrive. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant to say describe the reference as best I can. Also, any explanation as to no answer to my question about references 5 and 6???2601:1:9F80:14:28E3:1D62:7DB0:C00D (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First, please login to respond so that your unblock request and subsequent discussion can be properly linked to the account and thus be WP:GAB-compliant. Second, nobody will comment about 5&6 because unblock requests are about the behaviour that led to the block (ie. WP:COI, WP:U) and NOT content  ES  &#38;L  22:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)