User talk:Pedegru

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your email
Thank you for your email. Your block was not, as you seem to think, because of any suspicion that you were trying "to pull a fast one" or that you had "malintent". MAny people come here with the sincere belief that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can add any information they like to Wikipedia", and a very common mistake is for people to think that Wikipedia can be used as a medium for advertising or promoting their company, club, band, web site, or whatever, and I have no reason to doubt that you acted in good faith. However, Wikipedia's policy is that it may not be used for such purposes, and anyone whose only purpose here seems to be promotion can be blocked. If you wish to continue editing, without promoting your business, you can follow the instructions given above to request an unblock. As the administrator who blocked you, I will not assess any such request, but will leave it to another administrator, so that you get an independent review. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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. Max Semenik (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You note
Good morning Max. Thanks for getting back with me so quickly! Super.

Bear with me because there's a lot to look at on the site and I'm really having to hunt for some of the links. I hope I've got this going to the right place.

Also, I followed what looks like the Rob Neal question and it appears to be available but I'm not sure I did that correctly either. Sorry :-( But it did look that way. Yes?

Next section - here ya go

Here are a few key questions: Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory? Ha! Oh yes. I completely get that now! LOL

Do you understand conflict of interest? Yes, I do. I found another page for a company kind of like Pedegru (no idea why I didn't look for that before except for what I shared about the web developers and their hurrying me along - I'm kind of kidding as the blame is mine - just makes me feel a little better about the dumb-ness of my oversight)

Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable? Yes, I do...I hope it is. It feels notable to me at least. Now that I have a guide I feel certain I can convey the notable parts. And yes, as an animal enthusiast, in the deepest sense, there is no question that the topic is valuable. I'll work very hard to make it as interesting and useful as I possibly can. PLEASE check, as you probably would anyway, and let me know if I need to make an adjustment of any sort however. I really do want it to be right and fit within the format.

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. Oh, that was the problem. I see. Gosh, well, that's definitely fixed easily. Yes, I can see how that would have been suspect now. All my usernames and passwords are the same so that I don't forget them actually. I know it's not considered wise but there are so many I would never keep them straight. So, that's actually the reason I did that but I can certainly remember my name alright.

Thank you Max. Really appreciate your help with this.

Max Semenik (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Um... just because something "feels" notable to you doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia. Importance does not equal notable. WP:CORP goes into detail about the criteria a company must meet before it can have an article on Wikipedia. Would you please look it over, and then given that new knowledge, please let us know what you intend to do on Wikipedia if you are unblocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...
I see. So Pedegru has to be famous, basically. I suppose I was anxious to accomplish two things: starting the page rather than someone who has no connection; tell the story as it's unfolding. There is a significant history though it hasn't been written about and published by an outside source.

Let's say you decide to start a page on Pedegru and you, for whatever reason, don't care for the company, the subject, the approach, whatever. What can we do about that? There are plenty of mean-spirited people motivated by all sorts of things.

So, in other words, the entity has to be "notable" but do the people who make statements about it also have to be expert at least in some way as opposed to simply having an opinion. I was just reading the entry for Twitter and frankly I have a set of Encyclopedia and the writer's tack and tone sound nothing like anything in any of those volumes.

One would seem to defeat the intent of the other. But again, I may not have this right and it's a genuine question. Thanks again Max


 * For a company to be notable, it must have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. We can't use just anybody who makes a statement as a source, so statements on Twitter would not qualify. Reliable sources explains what sources are acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

when you get a second...
I know you're probably at work so just read my question again when you have time. I understand the over all concept now but would like clarification on the two points. Mostly if there is some way to reserve the page, name, something, that prevents just anyone from doing it instead.


 * Well, I could protect the page so nobody can re-create it, but that is an administrative function reserved for pages that have been repeatedly created and deleted. No administrator would create-protect an article title based on a request from a company representative.


 * Otherwise, anyone can edit Wikipedia. In fact, it is preferred that people create articles who don't have a conflict of interest with the topic, as you do. That is the best way to ensure neutral treatment of the subject. When the company becomes notable by virtue of having significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, then someone will create an article on it.


 * If your concern is that someone will create an article full of negative information, the same rules apply: The information must be verifiable, and published in reliable sources (not blogs, forums, twitters, or any other user-generated content). Articles are subject to deletion if they don't meet the criteria for inclusion, or don't have their claims referenced to reliable sources.


 * Occasionally a company will create a user account with the company name, knowing full well that it will be blocked, to prevent anyone else from creating it and pretending to edit in the company's behalf. Since you have already created the user account "Pedegru" and it has been blocked, the possibility of someone usurping it is no longer a concern for you. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me add that Wikipedia would prefer that someone does write an article about the company, if and when it ever meets the requirements for inclusion. It could be anyone, as long as they are not at all related to the organization whatsoever.  That is how 99% of Wikipedia's articles got here...the other 1% probably have not been deleted as WP:SPAM yet :-)  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not previously been involved, but came across the thread. I have to say that in my opinion the text as submitted does not satisfy notability guidelines at present. I see no problem with an unblock once we are sure that you are clear about this. Your suggested new name is, of course, fine. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Guys...
Looks as though a couple of you are helping on this (I think...one day I'll get how all this works) and I really, really appreciate it. I'm sure you have numerous ways to spend your day so I mean it, thanks!

A short story. A woman, I'll call her female, no lady, joined the site and apparently got it confused with another she'd been to. Here it comes, among other things she called me greedy and self-serving - that was just her first note. Liar came next when I told her we don't charge for a thing and she must be thinking of about site.

Not that it matters, I guess, but thus far we're so far in the red I should to start learning Mandarin. In the end she realized her mistake but didn't bother to apologize. I'm sure she's one of the nice ones. I know I'll need to develop a tough skin but that was hurtful primarily because we are working diligently to do something so opposite to that.

But, it reinforced my goal of tying up as many loose ends as possible. I'm joining every site I can think of, and you know how many that is, and so, at the very least, I'm thrilled to know that somehow, in my trek to become the prize winning Wiki-bumbler I still somehow managed to accomplish that.

Okay, I'm up to speed now...we'll work on becoming famous. By then I should be tough as nails and able to write the most self-effacing and harshly critical submission you've seen ;-)) However, if it can be freed I will study diligently to make sure it's everything it should be and nothing it shouldn't. My day, week, will have been made.

Thanks again, I guess Anthony this time, and have a great week. Rob


 * Rob, on that basis I'll unblock this account, trusting you do the following:
 * Go to WP:CHU/Simple immediately to request a change of username.
 * Edit here responsibly (preferably in topics interesting to you personally that have nothing to do with your business) and refrain from using Wikipedia as a promotion channel for your company.
 * No need to become "famous", just noticed by reliable sources. In time, your company's efforts may be reviewed in independent publications that Wikipedia considers reliable, and at that time an article can be written. Thank you for your understanding. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Change of User Name
WP:CHU/Simple

Not sure I'm doing this correctly but I think you need this note with the above link for a change in user name. If you need to know what we came up with for a substitute it's robneal. If that's not the right format any version of that is okay with me.

Thanks!


 * No -- Just click on this link: WP:CHU/Simple
 * Then follow the instructions you see there.
 * Robneal or Rob Neal or whatever you want is fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthony - one last question
The point that came up earlier was a great one and gave me a little relief. If I change my user name to Rob Neal does that mean that Pedegru is then open again? It's was a comforting thought. That's the only thought I had and wanted to clarify. Last question, promise. Thanks again Anthony. Hope you're having a great evening. Rob
 * I'll answer. Changing your username means that this account, and all edits associated with it, are changed to the new username. The username Pedegru will not become available; both names belong to the same account, but you won't be able to use the old one anymore. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I swore that would be the last one so...
can we just call this a clarification? would I be able to switch back to Pedegru at some point should Pedegru become notable enough to warrant a page on Wiki...for instance like those for Twitter, StumbleUpon, and so forth?
 * Absolutely not. The name Pedegru violates Username policy and is one of the reasons you were blocked, and you are currently unblocked solely for the purpose of changing your username. A Wikipedia account must represent only you as an individual, not a group, organization, or corporate entity. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is where I'm getting lost...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

couldn't someone at some point open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedegru?

this is where I'm lost...and I've read the policy now and understand it so either Twitter page is in violation, as I see it, or there are exceptions for some reason.

this is why I was confused earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedegru (talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 June 2012
 * What is it about the article on Twitter that you think is in violation of policy? If you can specify, it may be possible to tell you why you are right, or why you are wrong, but at present I have no idea what you have in mind. Also, you were unblocked only so that you could request a change of user name, but you have not done so, and have continued to edit from this account, despite the fact that it has been explained to you that doing so is unacceptable. Even though you have edited only this page, you really should not do any more editing until you apply for a change of username. If you don't apply soon the block is likely to be reimposed. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello James. I've been completely immersed in a move, finishing work on the website and so forth - real life. I'll get back to this during the month but got out of the swing along about the third layer of discussion. However, I did want to address something you said. You indicate in your last note to me that I have continued to make changes to the Pedegru page and I didn't even know I could...so I have certainly not done so. I don't know what edits you think you see or why you think I'm the one who made them but all of that is completely wrong. It further indicates that I don't respect this processs, which is about the 500th reference of that kind, and to be quite honest I feel targeted. The accusations that I don't understand healthy boundries and don't observe them is getting to be rather insulting. I'm not in the greatest mood today and writing often sounds more harsh than the real thing so perhaps the same could be said of your last statement. Regardless, I'm responding because I recieved an e-mail from the system and didn't want to ignore it and not because I have time to put into working on this right now. As I mentioned I'll be back during the month and get it resolved once and for all. Regards, Rob Neal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedegru (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 July 2012‎
 * Somehow you have misunderstood me. I said "you have edited only this page", meaning this talk page that you are reading now. I also have no idea what "process" you think I said you don't respect. My message was intended to be a friendly attempt to help you, and I am sorry that you evidently took it badly. I have re-read my message, and I am really not sure what it was that I said that you took exception to. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)