Nikstepura
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi Nikstepura! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 16:07, Monday, June 15, 2020 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
June 2020
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 14:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Orphaned non-free image File:Raybird 3 Catapult launch.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Raybird 3 Catapult launch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nikstepura (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Insert your reason to be unblocked here: I have been blocked for advertising a company "in return for undisclosed payments" which is false. I have made a single Wikipedia article page which I have never been paid for. The company is somewhat well-known in Ukraine and has a lot of articles about it. I have taken information about the company from a multitude of articles but I agree that some of them might be biased. I would love to have a chance to edit the article and put only the information that is not "advertising-like" into it. Because it is my first article, I may have done something wrong or used incorrect sources, but I would love to change that if given an opportunity. Thank you!
Decline reason:
I have determined you are trying to mislead us. You uploaded File:Original Skyeton logo.png and stated explicitly that you created the logo and own the copyright. So either you were lying then (and placing the entire Wikipedia project in legal jeopardy) or are attempting to mislead us now about the nature of your WP:COI and WP:PAID status. Additionally, I note that you share a last name with the founder of the company, further indicating that you do indeed have a conflict of interest. Reminder: you do not need to receive money for your edits in order to be considered a paid editor; see WP:PAID. Yamla (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would like to give you an additional answer for this if possible. I have indeed made a few mistakes making this article, I acknowledge that and I truly would like to change and improve that. I have uploaded images without stating who is the actual owner of the copyright. I am sorry, I will change that asap if I am unblocked (I have already changed a few that I wrongly described as my own work). I truly am not trying to mislead you, I do not know where to disclose my conflict of interest, because, yes I do understand that I have a COI in the end but my main goal is to provide an honest, proven, and "non-advertising" information. That still doesn't make me a paid editor, I reviewed your rules on paid editors. I am not a stakeholder, employer, nor do I have a close financial relationship with the founder of the company. I know Wikipedia discourages the articles or edits from people who have COI. I would still like to provide Wikipedia with the information about the company, I believe there is enough neutral and "non-advertising" information that I can provide, moreover, I am trying to do my best to stay neutral. Again, I would like to ask to re-review and reconsider my answer and unblock because I mean no harm/or misinformation to this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)
- You will need to disclose the exact, specific nature of your conflict of interest. Also, while other admins may disagree, I think it's very unlikely you'd be unblocked to continue writing about this company. Note that you don't need to convince me, though; a different administrator will review your next unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I can easily state what my COI is with this company (I am a relative of the founder (however, I do not take any payments nor did they explicitly asked me to write this article; I do now know the exact format of how to put this in a Wikipedia article, I will disclose that if I am able to.). On another note, yes, I do intend to write about this company if I am unblocked, but I am not going to try to promote its products or the company itself; I was creating this article for it to be available as a piece of general knowledge on Wikipedia. I do not know if there is a problem with contributing one article and not contributing in other ways. (I thought I could help to bring some knowledge but at the moment I do not intend to make other contributions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)
- You are free to make an unblock request. Note that I oppose lifting your block, but it's not up to me. --Yamla (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Nikstepura (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I am asking to unlock my account for spam/advertising content only. I have no intention of advertising or providing biased information on this platform. I am leaving the conversation I had with the previous admin who declined to unblock the account for you to review the information if something is not clear. I am a COI to the "Skyeton" article and I have failed to disclose that, I am sorry, given an opportunity, I will disclose that I am a relative of the founder of the company (I think there is no point, but I will still say that I wasn't paid or asked by this company or their employees to create this page, it was done on my behalf only). I will also change the images I have uploaded to be the property of the company and not my own. Thank you for your consideration!
Decline reason:
Since you seem to still want to edit about the company that you have a COI with, there are no grounds to lift the block. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I am sorry but I do not follow the logic behind this reasoning. I have reviewed all the rules and issues that occur when people have a COI with an article. There is nothing that states that I should be blocked in my position or should be prohibited to edit/use Wikipedia as an editor. Please, I am trying to be reasonable and understand where can I find a reason for not lifting my block in Wikipedia policies?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)
Nikstepura (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, Just to reiterate what I said later in this unblock request, I will NOT directly edit the article I have created, I would like for it to be published though if possible, and I will only suggest for edits if some of the information appears unproved or biased. I hope that whoever is reading it at least tries to understand me and maybe put themselves in my shoes. Thank you very much for taking your time to consider my unblock, I understand that this job is not very rewarding or simply unpaid, so I hope you understand that I am also doing it without malice or misinformation intent. I have posted a single article on wikipedia, after which I have been blocked indefinitely forever. I have tried to contact wikipedia admins, which you can see above and tried to reason with them saying that I am not here because of financial or advertisement reasons, at some point I might edit or add other articles in the future, but at the moment I wanted to write something about a topic I am familiar with. At the moment I am a bit confused about how wikipedia articles about companies are made. Does wikipedia expect everybody to write stuff about random things the writers of the articles are not connected to in any manner? I am sure I am not the first or the last one who is doing it, but I am also trying to be completely unbiased and transparent. I have made mistakes writing this article but I am more than willing to correct them and abide by all the rules wikipedia provides. I understand I have a COI, but because of it I am willing to share my knowledge about it without stating false or unproven statements and also disclose my COI at the first time I am unblocked. My previous 2 unblock reviews both did not provide a rule/wikipedia reference of the reason/subject I have been blocked for. If I am, at the moment, still not abiding some rules/regulations please tell me so in the unblock review so I can also change for the better. Maybe we can come to some understanding. Thank you again for your time and I am sorry for writing such a long request!
Decline reason:
Through the discussion here, it seems that you are only here for one purpose: to edit related to this singular company. While you said you will not edit the article directly, you are saying that your focus will be on requesting changes to be made to that company's article. If you're able to reassure us that you have interests in editing things that are not the company, then an unblock can be considered, but we do not allow users whose sole purpose is to edit articles in which they have a connection. only (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is crazy! 5 people are in discussion and nobody has still stated WHAT is the reason for blocking me? And when I am asking for WHAT the reason is, I am referring to what specifically is the promotional content in the article Draft:Skyeton. Look it up! There is nothing that constitutes an advertisement! Or if there is: tell me what is it? There is absolutely no point for me to even continue this discussion because none of you admins are even replying to me anymore, I have waited for the last review for over 2 months, that's just practically inadequate. About this comment: "we do not allow users whose sole purpose is to edit articles in which they have a connection": what? You are making up rules now because there is no rule like that on WP:COI. What it states in "Dealing with single-purpose accounts" is that the rules are broken when advertising problem is being found over and over. In this situation with myself, I still haven't even gotten the first explanation for why I was blocked... Would be nice if you could answer me or tell me how to tag people so I can get feedback for my words only (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)}} I don't know how to address people by tagging so that's why I signed as you.
Regarding "Does wikipedia expect everybody to write stuff about random things the writers of the articles are not connected to in any manner?"; yes, that is what typically happens here and what is desired. You might later be permitted to indirectly edit about things related to your COI, but you will first need to build up a good edit history showing that you understand Wikipedia guidelines and can write in the proper manner. In the short term, however, it is extremely unlikely you will be unblocked to write about about subjects for which you have a COI(though that will be up to the next administrator, not me). Since you state there are no other subjects you want to contribute about, I declined your request. There must be a benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking you, and in my opinion there is none if you are only here to violate the conflict of interest policy and WP:PROMO. If you just want to tell the world about this company, there are alternative forums where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I got your message, I will not be permitted to edit this article or the articles about this company/its products if I have not built up a history of understanding Wikipedia rights. However, again, this is completely not true that I am violating any policies, and I have not promoted or advocated for/against this company's products. I don't know why, but you guys think that I will do it regardless of my intentions (just because I have a COI), which I think is absolutely ridiculous, but likely based on the past experiences with people promoting products on Wikipedia (which I understand is a problem). The fact that I am not the same as those mal-intentioned advertisers does not change anything, and that's sad because, again, I am not violating anything, and open to do a better-unbiased job (but you are ignoring it). But still, I will NOT edit this article. If you say that this is what I was blocked for (which still is wrong because Wikipedia policy states it is "discouraged" and not prohibited") I will stop editing this article. But please, keep in my mind that "NO, people do not write about companies that they don't know anything about or connected to in any ways" they just hide it better than I have done. I have come here with clear and transparent intentions but unfortunately have been met with blunt disregard and blocking me without stating a specific rule I have violated, or not being unblocked for reasons that are not stated in Wikipedia policy. Anyway, I am sorry if I am being rude but I really, really want some justice and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)
I am not presently an administrator (however, I was for over a decade), and lack the technical ability to unblock you - however, I will try to respond to some of your request:
Does wikipedia expect everybody to write stuff about random things the writers of the articles are not connected to in any manner?
- Yes, we expect everybody to write about things that they are not financially connected to.
I am sure I am not the first or the last one who is doing it, but I am also trying to be completely unbiased and transparent.
- The reason for our conflict of interest policies is because it is nearly impossible to be unbiased when writing about yourself / your org / your business. That others have done the same, or will is immaterial to this request, and is typically dealt with as soon as it's detected.
I have made mistakes writing this article but I am more than willing to correct them and abide by all the rules wikipedia provides.
- Abiding by all all rules will likely include not editing articles that you have a conflict of interest with directly. A solution that others in this situation use would be to request, and civilly discuss changes on the article's talkpage.
My previous 2 unblock reviews both did not provide a rule/wikipedia reference of the reason/subject I have been blocked for.
- Per your block log, you are blocked for spam / advertising.
The best way forward for you here, and the most likely road to getting unblocked will be to agree to stop editing articles that you are connected to. If there are changes that need to be made to those articles, use the talkpage to suggest them, and to discuss them in a civil manner. Understand that what may appear unbiased to you - may not to others, and accept that you simply may not be able to make certain changes. SQLQuery me! 16:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion and understanding, I have indeed agreed to not editing this article. When I said they have not provided a reason for blocking me I meant that nobody has stated where and how exactly I have committed whatever I was blocked for. The reason is given as "spam/ad" but Where is there spam/ad in the article that I have written? If there is something like that I will use the user page to try to request to remove it without editing the article directly (if I am able to do that). Again, I understand what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish but reasonably there is no way that articles about business are written without any biased option. Those might be edited out and this is what I would also want to accomplish - "Unbiased Article about a company that is somewhat well-known in the UAS industry". They already had a few articles about their products but for some reason, the article about themselves does not exist which is why I wanted to write it, and then if some biased or unproven stuff is present -edit those parts out. Thanks again for your time and understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikstepura (talk • contribs)
Your draft article, Draft:Skyeton
edit
Hello, Nikstepura. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Skyeton".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Nikstepura (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, this is 3rd or 4th time, but it has been a while since I talked to the admins, so I miss you, guys:) I would like to ask one last time: I was blocked for advertising and promotion of an article Draft:Skyeton, which is now deleted. I have requested many times what/where is the advertising parts. Still no answer. I believe you might not be able to see the article anymore, so if you'd like to re-check it and conclude for yourself if there is any advertising, I would greatly appreciate it if you request this article for undeletion. If this is something you wouldn't want to do, I don't know what to say. I believe I haven't been treated fairly in this discussion, but everyone has their own view on this issue. Still, I do not understand why I was just plainly ignored in the end. If that's what you intend to do as well, please, let me know, so that I can stop being a part of this community and try to find reason.
Decline reason:
You appear to have no intent to make any contributions other than to recreate an article with which you have a COI. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm curious as to what you think has been unfair, you have been given the opportunity to make your case. That you have not yet gotten the result you want does not mean it is unfair. Re "what is the advertising parts"; promotional editing is not just advertising. You don't have to be selling something or soliciting customers to be promoting a company. Wikipedia considers merely telling about something promotional. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not just telling about the subject. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia summarizes merely what other reliable sources state. And that was exactly what I did when writing an article. If there was a problem with the sources I have used, I would be very willing to communicate with you and other admins to use only the sources Wikipedia deems reliable. As I have said, I haven't written a single phrase from my own "head" and have cited everything that I put in the article. In terms of the unfairness part: unfairness is simply not legitimately answering my questing and banning me for something that I haven't done - do you think it is/isn't fair? I am not even arguing that I shouldn't be writing/editing the article, I am merely saying that I was banned for advertising that I haven't done. Am I wrong? To sum-up: I may not have made my case that I should/shouldn't be writing the article, but I believe I have made my case when saying I wrong wrongfully banned Nikstepura (talk) 9:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I said above, promotion is not just advertising, at least on Wikipedia. We want contributors who will contribute to this project to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge broadly, not just about things they have a conflict of interest with(which they should really avoid anyway). You have not indicated that you will contribute to this project in areas other than that of your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that I shouldn't be writing/editing this article. Who do you think should have written an article about Skyeton then? I am not sure how would Wikipedia gain sources/articles if people who wrote there were in no way connected to the subject, it's simply illogical. I would assume that people just edit it and make sure there is no biased opinion, which would make sense, don't you agree? Nikstepura (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia prefers that independent editors who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources choose to write about it. The vast majority of the six million plus articles here were written in such a manner. If you had complied with the relevant policies up front, you might have had a chance to submit a draft for review, but it is usually extremely difficult for company representatives to edit in the manner required. In essence you would need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about it. No press releases, no staff interviews, no announcements of routine business transactions, and so on. I've seen some succeed, but not many. You seem to have the assumption that your company is entitled to a Wikipedia article; that is not the case. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)