User talk:OGT3

Your submission at Articles for creation: MacguyverTech (May 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gusfriend were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:MacguyverTech and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:MacguyverTech, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:MacguyverTech Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gusfriend&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:MacguyverTech reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to thank you for being nice with this. OGT3 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: MacguyverTech (June 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mori Calliope fan was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:MacguyverTech and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:MacguyverTech, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:MacguyverTech Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mori_Calliope_fan&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:MacguyverTech reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Mori Calliope fan   talk   20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Steven (Mac) McKeon moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Steven (Mac) McKeon, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Can someone please unblock me? I'll certainly work on things in draftspace (I didn't realize I was being a nuisance), and work on other things as well.
 * I'm not a spam/advertising only account. That was never my intent. I'm starting to realize what people are getting so upset about, but I'm not a spammer. I'm just trying to create. Lil' help? OGT3 (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello OGT3. The nature of your edits, such as the ones you made to Draft:Steven (Mac) McKeon and Draft:MacguyverTech, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:OGT3. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And how did you get Steven McKeon to give you a photo? See . — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hey, Mac! I'm trying to get you onto Wikipedia. Do you have a photo I could use? I'm trying to figure out this "infobox" thing." OGT3 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am staggeringly confused by this. I'll try to figure out specifically what you're looking for. OGT3 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious. What is your connection to McKeon? Are you paid to write about this person or do you have any connection to them? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I work for the company, but I'm not specifically being paid to do this. Mac's a legitimately good person, and I'm not trying to get anyone to buy anything. His accomplishments during his time as a DJ, during the pandemic, and as a programmer are legitimate, and have been covered by significant independent sources. Am I doing something wrong? OGT3 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone please unblock me so I can fix this? I'm genuinely trying to comply with guidelines, but I started receiving multiple messages from multiple persons...and I didn't see this until after I was blocked. OGT3 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Steven (Mac) McKeon


A tag has been placed on Draft:Steven (Mac) McKeon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Can I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * May I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * May I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * May I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, OGT3. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉  20:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you please unblock me so that I can both disclose information and contribute in other areas? OGT3 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please review my unblock request? OGT3 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * May I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. 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:. – Athaenara ✉  20:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ...why on Earth was I blocked? I'm trying to comply with what's being asked of me (by three different people at the same time), and being exceptionally polite about it. Apologies for not being particularly good at Wikipedia yet. Can you kindly unblock me? OGT3 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there nothing you're interested in contributing to this encyclopedia other than that guy and his company/website/whatever? – Athaenara  ✉  21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure there is! I simply hadn't tried it yet.
 * Again, I'm just learning how to use the format. You may have noticed me bumbling around in drafts. I've been reading the guidelines...is my entry blatantly fawning over him or trying to sell things? I specifically tried to make it factual and not opinion based. OGT3 (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello? OGT3 (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * May I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * May I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * May I please have the deleted material? OGT3 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No one is asking you to fix anything. The articles in question have been deleted.


 * You keep referring to the behavior that led to your block as 'it' ("was wrong at the time I did it", "I won't do it again.", etc). I think this may be part of what leads some to believe you don't understand why you are blocked - and that this would lead to a recurrence of that behavior. Your past requests also appear to deflect that this is more of a problem rooted with Wikipedia using some sort of unusual definition of promotional ("Of course I understand what was done was promotional by Wikipedia's definition").


 * I could be missing it, but I don't see anywhere that you have specifically explained what you intend to edit, and what edits you'd make. You only reword the instructions, and say "I would like to make positive contributions".


 * You've absolutely been doing great with the format, from what I've seen.


 * I'm not sure I would consider getting sarcastic with the volunteer administrators in your request ("this cardinal sin I've apparently committed requires a secret penance that I cannot figure out.") as being polite, or kind, but you have been patient. I 100% understand being frustrated at this point, but you'll want to avoid behavior of this sort - especially while asking to be unblocked.


 * I would strongly suggest reading the guide to appealing blocks. I will leave this request open for another administrator's input. SQL Query Me!  19:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If it's okay, I'll address and answer the points individually.

1) "* No one is asking you to fix anything. The articles in question have been deleted." Yes, they have, but apparently I'm still being held accountable for them, as shown here: "Also, if you think that saying someone sells "world-class software" sprinkled with pretty much every marketing buzzword ever found in spam is only promotional "according to Wikipedia's definition", you probably shouldn't be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate."

Again, I cannot fix something while I'm blocked. I *certainly* can't go back in time and undo it.

2) "* You keep referring to the behavior that led to your block as 'it' ("was wrong at the time I did it", "I won't do it again.", etc). I think this may be part of what leads some to believe you don't understand why you are blocked - and that this would lead to a recurrence of that behavior. Your past requests also appear to deflect that this is more of a problem rooted with Wikipedia using some sort of unusual definition of promotional ("Of course I understand what was done was promotional by Wikipedia's definition")."

I'm not deflecting; I'll flat-out state it.

I will not violate Wikipedia's TOS regarding promotional posts, and I won't be disruptive about it. That does not mean that I completely agree with it, even now that I understand it better. I don't agree with several of the laws in my town; but I abide by them. If you wish to leave someone banned for having an opinion that doesn't mirror every Wikipedia policy to the letter, that's probably a much bigger conversation that my blocked status.

3) "* I could be missing it, but I don't see anywhere that you have specifically explained what you intend to edit, and what edits you'd make. You only reword the instructions, and say "I would like to make positive contributions"."

I'm probably missing it too; this whole page has turned into a sprawling miasma. At some point I wrote that I could, and would, contribute in sports, comics, geography, pop culture, and a wide variety of other topics. If you want specifics, I've just relocated to Southwest Florida, and will be doing plenty of exploring.

4) "* You've absolutely been doing great with the format, from what I've seen." - Well, thanks. That's easily one of the kindest interactions I've had on Wikipedia.

5) "* I'm not sure I would consider getting sarcastic with the volunteer administrators in your request ("this cardinal sin I've apparently committed requires a secret penance that I cannot figure out.") as being polite, or kind, but you have been patient. I 100% understand being frustrated at this point, but you'll want to avoid behavior of this sort - especially while asking to be unblocked."

From the responses I've received from admins, I was under the impression that sarcasm was the preferred method of communication. I have no idea what volunteer admins go through on this forum, and I imagine it's a thankless job. However... allow me to suggest that some of the hostility, sarcasm and frustration that admins complain about on their talk pages doesn't just happen in a vacuum. See the NinjaRobotPirate response above. "Sprinkled with every marketing buzzword ever found in spam" is at the very minimum at least as sarcastic as anything I've posted. Also, I'm sorry that Deepfriendokra was too tired to finish their reply to me; it might have been helpful.

Without sarcasm: Once you get into the area of being okay with what someone says, but not liking their perceived tone, you're entering into a much bigger problem than me.

6) ": I would strongly suggest reading the guide to appealing blocks"

This is what has led to my frustration; I've done this, and was basically told, "You're just doing what the guide tells you to do!" This is literally from the guide to appealing blocks:

"You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead."

Can someone explain to me what specific wording should be used to convey that I understand why I'm banned and won't do it again other than to say, "I understand that my post was considered promotional/advertising, and I won't do that again?"

I got indefinitely blocked in half an hour trying to create an article that wasn't hurtful, obscene or disrespectful. It has been over five months with multiple requests trying to get unblocked, trying to follow Wiki's policies to do so. The replies I've received are discouraging.

Folks, I understand that you have a lot to deal with here, but not everyone who gets irked with your processes has ill intent. We're just trying to figure out how the place works.

I posted it previously, but THIS seems to fly in the face of everything I've experienced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

I'd really like to get involved with Wikipedia now that I've learned how to create, but I'm just tremendously discouraged at this point.
I'm all about acting in good faith.

I'm trying very hard to follow guidelines set forth by Wikipedia, and would like to do so, but find it (obviously) impossible to do while blocked. Additionally, the more I try to figure out what to do, the more I've felt unwelcomed. I've been exceptionally courteous in the IRC chat, but brushed off while trying to figure out what to do therein.

In searching out options, which seem to be limited, I ran across this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Interesting stuff therein:

"A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as a "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize."

"When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual Wikipedia norm. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized structures, which take time to learn (and which benefit from periodic re-examination and revision)."

"Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade)."

"Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. Remember that the apparent test editors have the potential to be tomorrow's editors. By giving a polite, honest and noncondemning answer to newcomers, you have the opportunity to teach them Wikipedia policy. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity, and to our project."

OGT3 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel discouraged about contributing to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure that the people who respond to help requests can do anything to help you at this point. You're currently blocked from editing and have an open appeal. If you have a question that can be answered by a non-administrator, feel free to use another  template.   00:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)