User talk:Make&Build

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Actually, I near-immediately recognized it was, and as a new user looking to remain in good standing with Wikipedia, I've since deleted any information on the page and will be looking to re-write to uphold the encyclopedic & citable-fact-based nature of Wikipedia we, the human race and probably some other animals, have come to both enjoy and rely on. Apologies for running afoul on my first attempt!

That said, would it be more acceptable that I delete this company-named account and create a Wikipedia account for myself (a current employee), then create a page that outlines the fact-based unbiased history of the company?

Also, thanks for the warning of deletion and explanations offered for why. Makes complete sense. Any direction offered to help me keep up with the awesome nature of Wikipedia is much appreciated. Thanks!) -- Evan Make&#38;Build (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

- Evan --Make&#38;Build (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Your proposed name is fine. Just consider this query:

Here are a few key questions:
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely understood, and a resource I have used as such. I am eager to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity, and very clearly understand where my original entry ran afoul.
 * I'm a little ashamed that I didn't acknowledge the now obvious conflict before creating the page name, and attempting to populate with information about the company. Now un-blinded by my previous good-faith intentions, and after diving in to better understand the goals of Wikipedia and why such guidelines are in place, I'm more eager to join the organizations ranks as valid contributor.
 * I certainly do now! Makes complete sense. Opening the floodgates to any & everything can, and likely would, dilute the encyclopedic nature at the core of Wikipedia.

I hang my head in shame. It was/is & hopefully won't be soon. An eye-opening realization and why I'm looking to correct the error of my ways. I have been reading deeper into the guidelines, admittedly something I should have done in greater detail before ever creating a username in the first place, so that, in time, with verified proof of contributions, I may be a viable, worthwhile, wiki-contributing individual. Not a hapless promoter. I appreciate the clarification on name change as well. I am not under the impression that changing a username will magically erase all guidelines. I am hoping that a change in username will allow me to better represent that I am an individual speaking (contributing) from a place of thought leadership and a willingness to add to the depth and breadth of Wikipedia's knowledge base. All said, I'm very sure that the very reason we're in communication is in part due to individuals looking to scam, corrupt, and intrude on the values Wikipedia holds dear. I can only hope that through valid contribution and fostering of the community values I can prove that I should not be included amongst those individuals. Honestly, the past two days of contact/exposure to the nature of creating & contributing, I am invigorated by a want to ensure future academics aren't plagued by the classroom phrase "Wikipedia is not a valid source". I think too many people believe they can (as I ignorantly attempted) simply post whatever 'fact' they want. I am now quite sure this is not the case. - Evan Make&#38;Build (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)