User talk:Smalby123

September 2023
Hello, I'm 2406:3003:2077:1E60:EDE9:C688:2C0C:D5F5. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to New York Court of Appeals Building have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.2406:3003:2077:1E60:EDE9:C688:2C0C:D5F5 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to New York Court of Appeals Building. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. This is not the place to boast about the window renovation project or promote the businesses that did it. Content you add must be verifiable, which means it must be backed up by independent, secondary, reliable sources through appropriate citations. You may not add material based on your "personal experience". —2406:3003:2077:1E60:5AE8:494B:5A6F:C529 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to get a second set of eyes on this decision? The material within the article is outdated. If it was warranted to include what windows were used in the original building, I do not see how it is soapboxing, advertising, or promotion to say how they were changed and by who.
 * These sentences seem comparable:
 * "Lewis Pilcher oversaw a rear addition in the early 20th century when the courtroom was moved as it had outgrown its traditional space in the capitol"
 * "Just to its south, visible from the Court of Appeals building through Corning Park behind City Hall, is St. Peter's Episcopal Church, a French Gothic-style edifice by Richard Upjohn and his son. "
 * "an 1815 stone Federal-style work by Philip Hooker that now serves as administrative offices of the City School District of Albany."
 * Can you explain further what specifically needs to be changed? I will make the updates. Smalby123 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You've been inserting inappropriate external links to promote Ed Page and his business. The language is not neutral, containing puffery such as magnificent mahogany interiors. The added content goes into excessively fine detail about the window design as well as putting undue emphasis (e.g. the only fenestration engineer with the design and manufacturing experience to meet this challenge) on Ed Page, who isn't the primary subject of the article.
 * Your additions to the article are not comparable to the examples you quoted above. Those people mentioned are notable architects who have their own articles about them, who had contributed to the design of large portions of the structure; this is highly pertinent in this article about a building listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
 * You will need to present independent, secondary, reliable sources that support the addition of content about the windows being replaced with a different design. If you do have such sources, I advise you to present them at the teahouse and ask for an opinion from someone else first before proceeding.
 * —2406:3003:2077:1E60:5AE8:494B:5A6F:C529 (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This phrase "the only fenestration engineer with the design and manufacturing experience to meet this challenge" was not included in my most recent addition. Smalby123 (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As the editor who has taken most of the photos in that article and improved it to GA status, I would say that what it needs most for your changes to stand is reliable sources. I don’t mind the additions, since most of the sources (the NRHP nom and Albany Architecture, primarily) I have had to work with over the years on the article date to the late 20th century, and information about any more recent architectural changes is welcome. But we need it to have a reliable, third-party independent source that makes non-trivial mention of the information in question. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must: To do this, post the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
 * Provide a new username.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)