User talk:EquiLibrio

December 2021
 Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. --   LuK3      (Talk)   16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone else will review your request. The article about your organization does have some issues which I have tagged on it; if not resolved, the article could be deleted, although the wishes of the organzation are not usually relevant to whether or not an article exists about it(as an example Donald Trump would probably rather not have the numerous articles about him on Wikipedia, but it's not up to him.) Articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to state about it, not what it wants to state about itself; if you have such sources, you might later be permitted to make formal edit requests. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add an independent source referencing the retirement of James D. Stewart and the transfer of the Rudolf Steiner Archive to Steiner Online Library . I can also provide a copy of the Asset Transfer Agreement which transferred the assets of the e.Lib, Inc. (including the Rudolf Steiner Archive) to Steiner Online Library to fulfill the missions of both nonprofit organizations. I merely need to be instructed as to how to send a copy to you. You can also see an announcement from James D. Stewart here . There is also a copy posted by James D. Stewart on LinkedIn here Steiner Online Library (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sources must be reliable by Wikipedia's definition - they require an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Therefore, blogs and social media postings - which by definition are published by the user writing the content - are not considered reliable. This disqualifies most social media platforms as sources (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Linkedin, YouTube, etc.) - except if it is the official, editorially-reviewed channel of an existing reliable source (e.g. CNN, BBC, etc.). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. Please see the article by the Anthroposophical Society in America then. I hope this helps. Large news organizations such as CNN, BBC, etc. would not cover the small asset transfer of the Rudolf Steiner Archive from the e.Lib Inc. to Steiner Online Library.Steiner Online Library (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the current state of the Rudolf Steiner Archive article (sourced by only primary sources) and the limited coverage it has received outside of the organization itself, it begs the difficult question - was this organization ever notable enough for inclusion from the beginning? Honestly, I don't think it ever was. I've searched in Google, Google Books, Google News and Google News Archives and found no substantial independent coverage.


 * The article appears to have been created in 2009 by, a single-purpose account whose only interest was to write about this organization and insert links in other articles to it. No significant improvements have been made to it since then, and I'm sorry to say that your additions aren't substantial enough to establish its notability. As such, I will be nominating the article for deletion.


 * Hopefully, an administrator will evaluate your unblock request in the near future. If you are unblocked, you would be most welcome to contribute to topic areas unrelated to your conflict of interest. Good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree. I hope that I am unblocked and would look forward to contributing on other matters in the future. Be well!Steiner Online Library (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I also see in the discussion re: the deletion of the page a recommendation to redirect from the Rudolf Steiner Page. That information about rsarchive.org is incorrect as well AND the location of the reference is incorrectly placed under organizations founded by Rudolf Steiner. If this information remains included in the Rudolf Steiner page, it needs to be updated. I recommend that it be deleted. See reference notes 81 and 82 on the Rudolf Steiner page. I cannot comment in this discussion since I am blocked.Steiner Online Library (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not received a response to my last comment, so I am repeating it here. I see in the discussion re: the deletion of the page two recommendations to redirect the Rudolf Steiner Archive page to the Rudolf Steiner Page. That information about rsarchive.org is incorrect on BOTH the Rudolf Steiner Archive page and the Rudolf Steiner page and would need to be updated. On the Rudolf Steiner page, in addition to having incorrect information about the Rudolf Steiner Archive, the location of the reference is incorrectly placed under organizations founded by Rudolf Steiner (which it was not). See reference notes 81 and 82 on the Rudolf Steiner page. The Rudolf Steiner Archive was founded by James D. Stewart aka the e.Librarian. The Rudolf Steiner Archive is now owned and operated by the Steiner Online Library. If this information remains included in the Rudolf Steiner page and the Rudolf Steiner Archive page remains active, both pages need to be updated. I cannot comment in this discussion since I am blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steiner Online Library (talk • contribs)
 * Additional requests do not speed up the process, only one open request is needed. It is open and visible, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @LuK3, I think this person seems inclined to try to learn our rules and be productive. I'd like to unblock so they can request a username change and post their COI disclosure. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with unblocking. Thanks for letting me know. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to unblock my account. I see Valareee requested I submit a name change request. Please let me know the text to use to do so. I checked and the username EquiLibrio is available and I would like to use that if possible. I have a lot of learning to do with respect to the coding requirements on the edit page.Steiner Online Library (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There's form you can fill out at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have submitted a GlobalRenameRequest. If and when I am unblocked, is there a procedure I could use to inform others that the information on the Rudolf Steiner Archive page is incorrect? Also, please let me know if I may then comment on the discussion as to whether to delete the page or redirect it to the Rudolf Steiner page. Thank you. Steiner Online Library (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's information at WP:Edit requests. Edit requests are used on article talk pages by editors who can't or shouldn't edit the article directly. You can comment on discussions about articles you have a COI with at the talk pages for those articles. —valereee (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @331dot, is there any way to tell whether a rename request was completed and is in queue? I have no idea where even to go to check. —valereee (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that, either. I can change it myself if the request isn't processed soon(I don't know what would happen if I changed it now). 331dot (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —valereee (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in renaming; we're quite backlogged on our end. As I explained on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username&oldid=1064292975#Complicated_directions WT:CHU], requests sent to the queue at GlobalRenameRequest are private, so other users can't see them. The user is emailed when their request is approved or declined. I can confirm that the request submitted went through successfully and was just part of the backlog.
 * I have renamed the user to a more appropriate name, and have unblocked them as well. Best wishes, — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no worries at all! EquiLibrio, you can go create your user page and place your COI notice there per the instructions at WP:COI, as discussed above. valereee (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the Rudolf Steiner Archive page has been redirected to the Rudolf Steiner page, I'm not sure what to include in the COI. I wouldn't think I have a COI with respect to Rudolf Steiner as a person, but rather my nonprofit. I can put a COI notice, but it will slightly inaccurate because my websites are not Wikipedia articles. Please recommend the best course of action here. EquiLibrio (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The only point is to let other editors know you have a connection. The connection doesn't need to be paid, it just has to mean you might not be contributing like a complete stranger to the subject. I have a COI notice on my user for a woman from my town with whom I have some connection. Her father used to work with my husband. When she was in high school, my then-6-yo daughter appeared in a hs play she was also in. I've met her once briefly. That's basically the extent of our connection. Is it really a COI? Nah. But I report it nonetheless because I probably am more interested in her than I would be if she were a complete stranger, and that might affect my approach, and it's good if I let other editors know. If you aren't interested in Rudolf Steiner, you don't need to declare it as a COI. If the reason you're involved with the Steiner Library is because you're a fan of Steiner, absolutely you should declare it. valereee (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I copied that declaration to your user at User:EquiLibrio. valereee (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)