User talk:Nikstepura

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Nikstepura! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 16:07, Monday, June 15, 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. MER-C 14:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Raybird 3 Catapult launch.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Raybird 3 Catapult launch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to give you an additional answer for this if possible. I have indeed made a few mistakes making this article, I acknowledge that and I truly would like to change and improve that. I have uploaded images without stating who is the actual owner of the copyright. I am sorry, I will change that asap if I am unblocked (I have already changed a few that I wrongly described as my own work). I truly am not trying to mislead you, I do not know where to disclose my conflict of interest, because, yes I do understand that I have a COI in the end but my main goal is to provide an honest, proven, and "non-advertising" information. That still doesn't make me a paid editor, I reviewed your rules on paid editors. I am not a stakeholder, employer, nor do I have a close financial relationship with the founder of the company. I know Wikipedia discourages the articles or edits from people who have COI. I would still like to provide Wikipedia with the information about the company, I believe there is enough neutral and "non-advertising" information that I can provide, moreover, I am trying to do my best to stay neutral. Again, I would like to ask to re-review and reconsider my answer and unblock because I mean no harm/or misinformation to this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)
 * You will need to disclose the exact, specific nature of your conflict of interest. Also, while other admins may disagree, I think it's very unlikely you'd be unblocked to continue writing about this company. Note that you don't need to convince me, though; a different administrator will review your next unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I can easily state what my COI is with this company (I am a relative of the founder (however, I do not take any payments nor did they explicitly asked me to write this article; I do now know the exact format of how to put this in a Wikipedia article, I will disclose that if I am able to.). On another note, yes, I do intend to write about this company if I am unblocked, but I am not going to try to promote its products or the company itself; I was creating this article for it to be available as a piece of general knowledge on Wikipedia. I do not know if there is a problem with contributing one article and not contributing in other ways. (I thought I could help to bring some knowledge but at the moment I do not intend to make other contributions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)
 * You are free to make an unblock request. Note that I oppose lifting your block, but it's not up to me. --Yamla (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not follow the logic behind this reasoning. I have reviewed all the rules and issues that occur when people have a COI with an article. There is nothing that states that I should be blocked in my position or should be prohibited to edit/use Wikipedia as an editor. Please, I am trying to be reasonable and understand where can I find a reason for not lifting my block in Wikipedia policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)

This is crazy! 5 people are in discussion and nobody has still stated WHAT is the reason for blocking me? And when I am asking for WHAT the reason is, I am referring to what specifically is the promotional content in the article Draft:Skyeton. Look it up! There is nothing that constitutes an advertisement! Or if there is: tell me what is it? There is absolutely no point for me to even continue this discussion because none of you admins are even replying to me anymore, I have waited for the last review for over 2 months, that's just practically inadequate. About this comment: "we do not allow users whose sole purpose is to edit articles in which they have a connection": what? You are making up rules now because there is no rule like that on WP:COI. What it states in "Dealing with single-purpose accounts" is that the rules are broken when advertising problem is being found over and over. In this situation with myself, I still haven't even gotten the first explanation for why I was blocked... Would be nice if you could answer me or tell me how to tag people so I can get feedback for my words only (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)}} I don't know how to address people by tagging so that's why I signed as you.

Regarding "Does wikipedia expect everybody to write stuff about random things the writers of the articles are not connected to in any manner?"; yes, that is what typically happens here and what is desired. You might later be permitted to indirectly edit about things related to your COI, but you will first need to build up a good edit history showing that you understand Wikipedia guidelines and can write in the proper manner. In the short term, however, it is extremely unlikely you will be unblocked to write about about subjects for which you have a COI(though that will be up to the next administrator, not me). Since you state there are no other subjects you want to contribute about, I declined your request. There must be a benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you, and in my opinion there is none if you are only here to violate the conflict of interest policy and WP:PROMO. If you just want to tell the world about this company, there are alternative forums where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I got your message, I will not be permitted to edit this article or the articles about this company/its products if I have not built up a history of understanding Wikipedia rights. However, again, this is completely not true that I am violating any policies, and I have not promoted or advocated for/against this company's products. I don't know why, but you guys think that I will do it regardless of my intentions (just because I have a COI), which I think is absolutely ridiculous, but likely based on the past experiences with people promoting products on Wikipedia (which I understand is a problem). The fact that I am not the same as those mal-intentioned advertisers does not change anything, and that's sad because, again, I am not violating anything, and open to do a better-unbiased job (but you are ignoring it). But still, I will NOT edit this article. If you say that this is what I was blocked for (which still is wrong because Wikipedia policy states it is "discouraged" and not prohibited") I will stop editing this article. But please, keep in my mind that "NO, people do not write about companies that they don't know anything about or connected to in any ways" they just hide it better than I have done. I have come here with clear and transparent intentions but unfortunately have been met with blunt disregard and blocking me without stating a specific rule I have violated, or not being unblocked for reasons that are not stated in Wikipedia policy. Anyway, I am sorry if I am being rude but I really, really want some justice and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)

I am not presently an administrator (however, I was for over a decade), and lack the technical ability to unblock you - however, I will try to respond to some of your request:


 * Does wikipedia expect everybody to write stuff about random things the writers of the articles are not connected to in any manner?
 * Yes, we expect everybody to write about things that they are not financially connected to.
 * I am sure I am not the first or the last one who is doing it, but I am also trying to be completely unbiased and transparent.
 * The reason for our conflict of interest policies is because it is nearly impossible to be unbiased when writing about yourself / your org / your business. That others have done the same, or will is immaterial to this request, and is typically dealt with as soon as it's detected.
 * I have made mistakes writing this article but I am more than willing to correct them and abide by all the rules wikipedia provides.
 * Abiding by all all rules will likely include not editing articles that you have a conflict of interest with directly. A solution that others in this situation use would be to request, and civilly discuss changes on the article's talkpage.
 * My previous 2 unblock reviews both did not provide a rule/wikipedia reference of the reason/subject I have been blocked for.
 * Per your block log, you are blocked for spam / advertising.

The best way forward for you here, and the most likely road to getting unblocked will be to agree to stop editing articles that you are connected to. If there are changes that need to be made to those articles, use the talkpage to suggest them, and to discuss them in a civil manner. Understand that what may appear unbiased to you - may not to others, and accept that you simply may not be able to make certain changes. SQL Query me! 16:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion and understanding, I have indeed agreed to not editing this article. When I said they have not provided a reason for blocking me I meant that nobody has stated where and how exactly I have committed whatever I was blocked for. The reason is given as "spam/ad" but Where is there spam/ad in the article that I have written? If there is something like that I will use the user page to try to request to remove it without editing the article directly (if I am able to do that). Again, I understand what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish but reasonably there is no way that articles about business are written without any biased option. Those might be edited out and this is what I would also want to accomplish - "Unbiased Article about a company that is somewhat well-known in the UAS industry". They already had a few articles about their products but for some reason, the article about themselves does not exist which is why I wanted to write it, and then if some biased or unproven stuff is present -edit those parts out. Thanks again for your time and understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)

Your draft article, Draft:Skyeton


Hello, Nikstepura. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Skyeton".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think has been unfair, you have been given the opportunity to make your case. That you have not yet gotten the result you want does not mean it is unfair. Re "what is the advertising parts"; promotional editing is not just advertising. You don't have to be selling something or soliciting customers to be promoting a company. Wikipedia considers merely telling about something promotional. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not just telling about the subject. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia summarizes merely what other reliable sources state. And that was exactly what I did when writing an article. If there was a problem with the sources I have used, I would be very willing to communicate with you and other admins to use only the sources Wikipedia deems reliable. As I have said, I haven't written a single phrase from my own "head" and have cited everything that I put in the article. In terms of the unfairness part: unfairness is simply not legitimately answering my questing and banning me for something that I haven't done - do you think it is/isn't fair? I am not even arguing that I shouldn't be writing/editing the article, I am merely saying that I was banned for advertising that I haven't done. Am I wrong? To sum-up: I may not have made my case that I should/shouldn't be writing the article, but I believe I have made my case when saying I wrong wrongfully banned Nikstepura (talk) 9:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above, promotion is not just advertising, at least on Wikipedia. We want contributors who will contribute to this project to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge broadly, not just about things they have a conflict of interest with(which they should really avoid anyway).  You have not indicated that you will contribute to this project in areas other than that of your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that I shouldn't be writing/editing this article. Who do you think should have written an article about Skyeton then? I am not sure how would Wikipedia gain sources/articles if people who wrote there were in no way connected to the subject, it's simply illogical. I would assume that people just edit it and make sure there is no biased opinion, which would make sense, don't you agree? Nikstepura (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers that independent editors who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources choose to write about it. The vast majority of the six million plus articles here were written in such a manner. If you had complied with the relevant policies up front, you might have had a chance to submit a draft for review, but it is usually extremely difficult for company representatives to edit in the manner required. In essence you would need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about it. No press releases, no staff interviews, no announcements of routine business transactions, and so on. I've seen some succeed, but not many. You seem to have the assumption that your company is entitled to a Wikipedia article; that is not the case. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)