User talk:Nate at StickyLife

OK
You've jumped the gun. Before creating an article, read those policies. If the company doesn't pass WP:CORP, there's no point in creating the article. If you can't prove it with WP:RS, guess what? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Not everyone or everything is going to have an article. I strictly could (possibly should) block this account as a sockpuppet WP:SOCK, but I'm not going to bother. I'm hoping you're going to be sensible and really read those policies, and do some digging for references. You can ask for advice - if I'm not around, try User:MelanieN, User:Cindamuse or User:Tokyogirl79. TG is an admin, the other two aren't (yet), but all three can give fair advice and opinion. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS When you sign on talk pages, just use four ~ things. That puts your sig on. Oh, and while we do say editing Wikipedia is free, that doesn't mean you can put anything you - or that it's easy... Peridon (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help. My built in concept of an encyclopedia seems to be misguided. I always understood and used encyclopedias to learn more about things that exist in the real world. I considered our company and what we do to be real and that we exist. Therefore I felt inclusion was valid. What I didn't realize was that to be recognized as being real or existing that we first had to be published. I am currently reading through the WIKI:Corp and WIKI:RS to learn more. I don't recall these documents being provided prior to creating a user page - so I honestly had no idea until I was blocked.

It was never my intention to become a sockpuppet. I setup a new account because I understood one of the reasons my original account suspension was because the username I used was a company or brand. I read through the Wikipedia:Username_policy to learn more and found the best acceptable solution would be my name at company. It was not my intention to be a sock puppet. If personal names are not encouraged, brand or company names are disallowed then what is left? I could create something random but what level of authority does that have? It would explain nothing about the person who submitted the content.

I see now just how premature and ignorant it was for me to add our information to wikipedia. I wish I could start all over. (that is delete my accounts and bypass on wikipedia all together) Through this experience I have come to realize that being in Wikipedia is something no-one should aspire to be in. If it happens great but not something one should ever pursue.

Nate at StickyLife (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a problem, like the username one. We can't load newcomers with policies to read in case they're here only to correct two typos. We can't catch the company names until they do something. StickyLife would be a fine name for someone working exclusively in mediaeval history, or 17th century Serbian theology. For you, it isn't. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that real = notable. Oddly enough, unreal can be notable - see San Seriffe. Your current name is OK - it's you and honestly declaring an interest in the company. It's not 'this is the official account for...'. Names can be almost anything except organisational, because accounts are for individuals, or obscene or provocative (and there we have fun, because in the UK it's OK to call a male hen a cock, but the Americans seem to need to call it a rooster, and to us a faggot is a bundle of sticks or a rather disgusting meatball...), and they mustn't end in -bot or imply that they are an admin or similar. Have a look for references - no blogs, forums, wikis, wordpress etc. Facebook etc, YouTube etc, etc. Talk to one of the girls - there's usually one or another around. Very clueful and helpful. I've seen Melanie turn a page of complete PR into a sound article, and get it where the author could take it over. Do remember that unlike Facebook, anyone can edit things. I've seen a vanity article about a chap that was up for deletion get kept after someone posted some well referenced things that the subject didn't want in open view. (It was kept, as it actually made him notable...) See what you can do, anyway. If nothing emerges (and the girls don't pop in), wait until you've got the coverage. You will know before long what you need to get in coverage. Getting it is another matter, but knowing what's what helps. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

At lease I'm not alone in this. Again, thank you for your help. I have much respect for you and your time. Everything you said makes complete sense and I respect that. I've been hunting for references and can't seem to find any that are 3rd party and not a blog. Melanie seems like someone I'd like to get to know, once we find the required coverage that will validate us. I agree with you and don't want something to come across as a PR or Ad. I don't mind having people edit our content. It would currently be difficult to find reliable sources that would put us in bad lighting. Looks like I'm going to have to wait until we have coverage. You're right, getting it is going to be difficult, because we can't solicit or ask for "coverage". It needs to remain 3rd party. Thank you again for your help.

Nate at StickyLife (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)