User talk:Mattgarrepy

Unblock requested
, thank you for the quick reply. I'd like to ask you to consider this more closely, as I think is making unfair and unfounded assumptions about me, and about my colleagues. I understand this is a sensitive area, so I can understand his or her reluctance -- but I believe I should have the chance to demonstrate that that we at Solodev learning to better honor Wikipedia's values and policies. I acknowledge that our learning process has been a bit messy. I have no intention to try to inject promotion or advocacy into an article; and I've worked to develop a better understanding of what that means to Wikipedians than any of us at Solodev had back in 2016. My colleagues and I use Wikipedia all the time, and we value its dedication to neutrality. My colleagues' earlier efforts may not have reflected that very well, but the reason was inexperience, not bad intentions. Before I made my account, we all looked back at the events of 2016, and we talked with experienced Wikipedians, to learn where we went wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes. One of the main things we did was decide would no longer work on Solodev-related content, and that I would pick up any such efforts, so we could take a fresh start, and avoid having multiple voices from our end in the discussion. There seem to be several unreasonable outcomes from the apparent ban on any Solodev employee working on Wikipedia: I hope that one of you will allow me to demonstrate that I'm ready to approach Wikipedia in a way that respects its dedication to neutrality and its justified concerns about COI. I do not want special treatment, but I'd like to have the same opportunity that any other new user has. I don't think it's fair for me to be blocked when there has been no complaint against my own behavior, and when the edits I have made appear to have been unproblematic. -Mattgarrepy (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look? This explanation seems plausible. Also, there is no behavioral link.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of two accounts I blocked, both of whom acknowledge that they work for Solodev. The fact that this account edited an unrelated article does not change the stated intentions of the account. These accounts, whether they are socks or not, are here to promote the company for whom they work and, as such, are at a minimum meat puppets, which is also prohibited by policy. Let Solodev promote itself through means other than Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User talk:Mattmclaren has relevant discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) If enough new coverage comes that Solodev passes the notability threshold, it will be impossible for us to propose a new, redrafted article at Articles for Creation. (There has been some more recent coverage, and I have worked on a draft, which is substantially shorter and better referenced. It seemed to me that the statements from, and  in the discussion allowed for the possibility that stronger referencing, and a more neutral narrative, might make for an acceptable article. Is it now truly impossible for us to even propose one?
 * (2) If somebody else writes an article, we won't be able to comment on any factual errors or omissions on that article's talk page.
 * (3) For all time, apparently, whenever somebody searches for the name of our company or our individual names, they will find big warnings that we have been blocked - a permanent blemish on our reputation that does not reflect our genuine desire to work respectfully with Wikipedia.
 * Since I was pinged here: Nothing in my comment at the deletion discussion should be construed as a favourable opinion towards Solodev's chances of being covered by Wikipedia. Any topic imaginable could be the subject of an acceptable article with "stronger referencing" and "a more neutral narrative"; that's not an endorsement. A quick search hasn't shown anything helpful in establishing that Solodev is any closer to meeting our notability standards. Huon (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No misunderstanding, -- that was how I read your comment. Thanks. -Mattgarrepy (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)