User talk:StrivingStyles

Blocked
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.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website 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.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not. See Wikipedia's FAQ for 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.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * 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. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for unblock - username change
StrivingStyles (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New Username Request
StrivingStyles (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2013 (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. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've a doubt about the latest name chosen - The Brock Review is a publication at Brock University. Is there any connection? Peridon (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New Username Request
StrivingStyles (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

New Username Request
StrivingStyles (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That user name is fine; now if you could answer the questions above from Closedmouth then we can proceed.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry Anthony, I did not realize those questions actually had to be answered, I thought they were a bit rhetorical. My bad. Yes I understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a business directory. Yes I have read through and understand conflict of interest. Yes I also understand that Wikipedia is for notable topics.

I hope also to continue to work with the editors to help me as I enter information to make sure I do not violate these policies as that is not my intent.

Sincerely

StrivingStyles (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Rhetorical? No - we need to be 100% certain that you will not even include the words "striving" or "styles" in any of your future edits to Wikipedia in any way, shape or format.  We need to ensure that you will not spam or promote any entity.   I came here this morning intending to be unblocking, but I'm still not convinced.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for getting back to me. Can you help me understand however since MBTI is a trademark and is mentioned in their section of Wikipedia and is a tool and entity that is used, as well as other tools such as 360-degree feedback, neuro-linguistic programming, DiSC Assessment as examples all have their own pages. I am most interested in noting the research however, the research has been organize and trademarked as SSPS and that is how it is used. I was actually following the MBTI wikipedia page format when I initially was trying to put everything together so I am not sure why it has been have flagged as promotional. Perhaps the direct links are not the right approach and they should be at the end as references - that I can understand. However, just trying to understand, if these other pages can refer to their tools, then in trying to explain how it is used, why is Striving Styles as a trademarked system not allowed to be mentioned? Is there some sort of time frame or global acceptance or something that allows that to be considered notable?

StrivingStyles (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Based on the last piece of communication it notes that I ″have confirmed that it is their intention to continue to spam Wikipedia, and create articles with which they have massive WP:COI, even though they have been provided appropriate and significant guidance. They have also been provided sufficient information on notability which they likewise have ignored. At this time, such promotion needs to be dissuaded.″

I do not understand this conclusion. I have asked questions for understanding and clarification above but I have not said that I will violate the policies at all. I have not been given an explanation however as to why MBTI, 360-Feedback and DiSC Assessment can all be written about and listed when another methodology Striving Styles cannot. If someone can answer that question for me then I will have a better understanding as to how to best approach writing about the research? Can someone answer that question for me please, because I do not see the delineation between those former three and the last one as to why one is being considered a violation but the other three are not?

Thanks

StrivingStyles (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which parts of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO were you having the most trouble understanding? You also horrifically misunderstand: other "sites" are NOT the ones contributing to their articles, as you have already been advised (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To de-acronym BWilkins' words:
 * Article X CANNOT justify Article Y...
 * Editors linked to a subject cannot see their own biases with regard to the subject, and thus should not edit it...
 * We do not synthesize material, merely citing others' synthesis...
 * Repeated addition of links or articles which serve no meaningful noncommercial purpose is verboten...
 * ...and ALL articles on ALL Wikipediae MUST be written in such a way that they cannot espouse any particular point of view to the detriment of others.
 * Hope this helps. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)