User talk:Taylosp13

October 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Thank you. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello SaferVPN (VPN). The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. 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, and if it does not, 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:SaferVPN (VPN). 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. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The intention of this article is not to promote SaferVPN services, but to formally add SaferVPN and their #UnblockTheWeb movement to their work with global NGOs and free speech activists including the non-profit Advancing Human Rights and their crowd-sourcing platform Movements.org to ensure an Open Web for dissidents.SaferVPN (VPN) (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That username is fine so I have performed the rename. Another admin will be along shortly to review your unblock request. However, it's likely to be declined as you've been violating WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. --Yamla (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence you have written above (beginning "The intention of this article...") is rather complex, and I don't fully understand what you are trying to say. Can you clarify what you mean by "to ensure an Open Web for dissidents"? Does that mean that you hope to use Wikipedia to help publicise the VPN, so that more users will be able to access it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. This statement is regarding the section #unblocktheweb in the original post. The Co-founders of SaferVPN have joined the human rights crowdsourcing platform Movements.org, they established the #UnblockTheWeb initiative to offer free VPN service to activists and dissidents who need it most. Advancing Human Rights have a page, as well as Movements.org and through their collaboration, SaferVPN has contributed to free VPN access to thousands across the globe providing them with anonymous, unrestricted Internet. To create a page for SaferVPN, I could then include links on those other pages directing back to this one. The movement continues to provide VPN access to dissidents, so further stories could then be added. Taylosp13 (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another reference if this helps Let me know if I can provide any more information here. Taylosp13 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Consensus was reached (here) that "users soft-blocked for username issues should not have to answer further questions as a prerequisite to unblocking after the username issue has been addressed". Since the username issue is resolved, you should unblock this user. Remember that the blocking template posted above says "please take a moment to create a new account". So why placing additional conditions for unblocking when at the same time we ask user to create new account?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't place additional conditions for unblocking, I just asked a question. I did not intend answering the question to be a prerequisite for an unblock, and as far as I am concerned any administrator who thinks the editor should be unblocked is free to do so. Obviously it is not for me to speak on behalf of anyone else, but what Dlohcierekim wrote doesn't look to me like placing additional conditions for unblocking: it looks more like telling the editor "This account is blocked, but you are welcome to either create a new account or have this one unblocked or renamed. However, if you do either of those things then there are things you should be aware of for your future editing, so here is a message explaining those things." In my opinion that is far more likely to be helpful than doing what I have seen some administrators do very frequently, namely posting an unblock message saying "your user name is the only reason for the unblock" when in fact there is also a problem with the nature of the editing. The result of that is very frequently that the blocked editor takes the message as meaning exactly what is says, creates a new account or gets renamed and unblocked, continues editing in the same way as before (which an administrator has explicitly said is acceptable) and is then blocked again. That is totally unfair to an inexperienced editor, and it is much more helpful to make it clear from the outset that he or she needs to be aware of other issues in order to avoid future blocks. Another possibility, of course, is to issue a "spam username" block right from the start, but that is really not an ideal way of dealing with a new editor who comes here in perfectly good faith, unaware that the kind of editing that he or she has in mind will be considered unacceptable, and who was certainly not spamming. I would not myself have dealt with this in precisely the way that Dlohcierekim chose to, but I don't see it as at all unreasonable, and I certainly can't regard it as "placing additional conditions for unblocking". Finally, I am very much puzzled by the fact that you say that Yamla, Dlohcierekim, and I "should" (not "may") unblock the account, and yet you haven't done so yourself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can and will unblock, I just didn't want to do it before discussing the issue with you. I should have written: you should have unblocked this user instead of you should unblock this user. From my perspective, that is what you should have done. The user is blocked for username violation, the issue is resolved, and and administrator who comes and reviews the case should unblock. Regarding the additional conditions, wrote above: "it's likely to be declined as you've been violating WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO". How can it be declined when the consensus is to unblock in such cases? This really looks like placing additional conditions, and such comments are unfair. The real question is: If the user is violating WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO, then why is he blocked only for username violation? But, that is a question for blocking admin.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  10:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, hopefully the paid looking editing has stopped.11:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey I noticed that you reviewed my page. How do I submit my sandbox to be reviewed and make the page public? Thank you for your help! Taylosp13 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the grey notice at the top of the page is a white button which will send it to the review queue. The article does seem to have a bit of a advert-y tone to it; I'd trim or remove the Automatic Wi-Fi Security, Privacy Policy, Buisness VPN, and VPN Market Growths sections, as they aren't very encyclopedic, and the last is isn't native to the company. Thanks, and feel free to ping me if you need anythign else, L3X1  (distænt write)  23:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing
Please, respond immediately to a post made by above.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  06:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "further stories may be added"? Sounds like the practice of adding spam to the encyclopedia is to be continued?? User thinks we are an outlet for "stories"? This does not alleviate my concern about WP:paid, I'm afraid.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Taylosp13's message at 00:51, 6 October 2017 did not convince me at all that he or she understands the point about promotional editing. It made no attempt to answer my question (which was about Taylosp13's purpose in editing) but instead just told us about what SaferVPN's aim is, expressed in terms which read as though the intention was to impress upon us that SaferVPN is a noble and worthwhile thing, and "deserves" to get publicity on Wikipedia. On the basis of that answer I would never have unblocked if promotional editing had been given as part of the reason for the block, but since, as Vanjagenije rightly pointed out, the editor has fully dealt with the reason given for the block, both in the block log and in the block notice above, I did unblock.
 * Taylosp13 please re-read Dlohcierekim's message above from 12:58, 4 October 2017, and especially note the sentence "In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message." If your editing is part of work for which you are paid then disclosing the fact is actually a legal requirement, as otherwise you are in breach of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, while if it isn't then it will help if you can inform us that it isn't, so that we know what the situation is. Please do not edit further until you answer Dlohcierekim's message. Also, while you have chosen not to answer the questions which I asked above (14:10, 5 October 2017), what you have said since I asked the questions gives the impression that you do indeed "hope to use Wikipedia to help publicise the VPN, so that more users will be able to access it". If so, you need to be aware that Wikipedia policy does not permit editing to promote, publicise, or advertise anything, whether editors believe that it is a noble cause or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand. The user's edits did not at that time rise to the level for a SPAMU block. They did look like PAID editing though, hence my request that they clarify the matter. Which clarification I await. I realize how byzantine our rules can seem to a newcomer, and did not wish to be more off-putting than needed. AGF that this is all a lack of understanding amd will shortly be remedied.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I apologize this is my first time using Wikipedia editing and it's all a bit confusing understanding pages and how to communicate directly with people. Even basic coding is beyond me so there has been a lot to learn this week. As for the original message that I see, "The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements." I am not paid to create the article, to make this clear. Personally, I am a passionate advocate for freedom of the Internet and overcoming online censorship. I do use SaferVPN, along with many of my friends and family. In reference to the previous comment made stating, "It made no attempt to answer my question (which was about Taylosp13's purpose in editing) but instead just told us about what SaferVPN's aim is, expressed in terms which read as though the intention was to impress upon us that SaferVPN is a noble and worthwhile thing, and "deserves" to get publicity on Wikipedia." As I did clearly state, my purpose in editing was to provide a page dedicated to SaferVPN's movement called Unblock the Web which provides free VPN access to journalists and others in need who live in areas that experience oppression and limitations to the Internet. May I clarify this has nothing to do with using Wikipedia as a platform for people to find SaferVPN to use. Wikipedia would only act as a means to inform people about the movement, and how SaferVPN, Movements.org and Advacing Human Rights work collaboratively to provide VPN access to those in need. Again, the comment "to impress upon us that SaferVPN is a noble and worthwhile thing, and "deserves" to get publicity on Wikipedia" was not my intention. I was only trying to inform you about a topic that you have no previous knowledge about by explaining that SaferVPN is an active member of a movement for freedom of speech. Which is exactly why they deserve a page - to inform people, like you. Not to generate publicity on a product. In response to "what you have said since I asked the questions gives the impression that you do indeed "hope to use Wikipedia to help publicise the VPN so that more users will be able to access it"." Again, no. This is not what I have said. I stated I would like to publicize their movement to promote freedom of speech. To reply to "further stories may be added'"? Sounds like the practice of adding spam to the encyclopedia is to be continued?? User thinks we are an outlet for "stories"?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but is adding storing such as (which was literally just published today) "spamming the encyclopedia"? I do not think I am breaching any guidelines by creating a page for SaverVPN's Unblock the Web movement in collaboration with Movements.org and Advancing Human Rights. You may refer to movements.org "Mission and activities[edit] Movements.org enables the exchange of skills and resources between activists and experts. Activists can post short descriptions of their projects and needs, while legal and other experts provide assistance using their special skills. Movements received support from Google Ideas in its start-up phase, and from Ronin Analytics in the design of its digital security perimeter.[3] Since its launch in July 2014, Movements.org has announced partnerships with SaferVPN - a software provider, which has committed to making free VPN subscriptions available for activists in closed societies,[4] and Youth Service America who run events to empower young people to engage in volunteer work.[5] Dissident users of Movements have regularly published original content in The Daily Beast.[6] Movements.org currently has over 20,000 users from up to 140 countries. The website is available in English, Arabic, Chinese, Ukrainian, Russian, Persian and French." SaferVPN here could be linked to this page, for example, describing their contribution. Taylosp13 (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SaferVPN (December 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DavidWestT 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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SaferVPN and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, 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:SaferVPN Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidWestT&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:SaferVPN reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DavidWestT (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)