Wesleyraz

Wesleyraz, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wesleyraz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Snoooze

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Snoooze, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

SNOOOZE

Hello your draft needs references or it might be deleted. Forres Harriers (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Snoooze

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Snoooze, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. VQuakr (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Draft:Snoooze into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. You appear to have copied text from other locations within Wikipedia, including Nightcap (drink), into your draft. VQuakr (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Contributions

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wesleyraz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am neutral 3rd party researching, documenting and informing public about Snoooze drink. I am in no way shape or form selling anything. My purpose for editing and contributing is to provide awareness, educational value and data including nutritional facts, health effects of proper sleep and general information about the brand that is interesting and unbiased. Please review and advise as I am still editing this draft Wesleyraz (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether you call it "providing awareness" or something else, and whether you are a third party or not(I'm not sure), you were promoting that product. Please read WP:PROMO. If you are associated with it in any way, you need to review conflict of interest. This is not the forum to merely tell about a product; this is an encyclopedia, which is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about subjects that are notable as Wikipedia defines it. You will need to better indicate that you understand these things before you are unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2019 (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.

Feedback

I am clear about the Wikipedia perspective and as providing neutral, unbiased, and non-partisan content. I am in no way affiliated with Snoooze or its company, but simply an outsider conveying information about this sleep drink and sleep beverages in general. I talked about these facts concretely and clearly in the history, ingredients and functions sections. I am sill working on editing the final effects section with more sources and references. Please advise. Wesleyraz (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In reading your now-deleted draft(which administrators like myself can still view), it reads as a promotional piece written by someone affiliated with the product, talking about its "secret formula and patented recipe" and the manner in which it is sold, among other things. You might as well be working for the makers of the product, though I accept your statement that you are not. I would suggest that you take some time to look at other Wikipedia articles on products, be it drinks specifically(like Coca-Cola or Pepsi) or products in general to learn the style of writing and information needed for articles. You may also want to use the new user tutorial and read some of the Help pages and Wikipedia's five pillars. You are welcome to make a new unblock request, which will be reviewed by someone else. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Further

Here is word for word off of cokes Wikipedia page : “ The drink's name refers to two of its original ingredients: coca leaves, and kola nuts (a source of caffeine). The current formula of Coca-Cola remains a trade secret, although a variety of reported recipes and experimental recreations have been published.” This specifically says the same things I said with regard to formula trade secrets and recipe ? What gives ? So thanks for input but I am still not sure how cole is any different than snoooze post in this respect ...both seem to share the same slant and subject matter . Wesleyraz (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you do not see the differences between your draft and the Coca-Cola article seems to be the major issue here. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wesleyraz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for presumed promotional content, but I am requesting unblock due to my intent as a informative, neutral 3rd party as I am not selling soliciting and promoting the product. Instead I am providing factual references about history function ingredients and effects . Thank you for your help and time Wesleyraz (talk)

Decline reason:

"presumed promotional content". I took a look through your contributions and they were overtly promotional. Whether you work for the company or not, those sorts of contributions are categorically inappropriate. You were overtly promoting the product. Given that you don't seem to understand that yet, it would be actively harmful to Wikipedia for me to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2019 (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.

Well you created the draft once and it was deleted and then you recreated another one, If the draft was deleted don't create it again. I feel the administrators are correct, keep this user blocked they will probably create it again if unblocked. Forres Harriers (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Drafts and publishing

Isn’t that the point of publishing ...editing and revising to reach a final clean best copy? I am going to review and re-edit until it is appropriate and sufficient for publish as I think the public should be aware and informed about the all natural sleep drink industry and more particularly snooooze just as wikis are available for coke for carbonated beverages and Red Bull for energy drinks. Please advise Wesleyraz (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

First you've got to get unblocked (which is very unlikely), second you have included the same information as you did in the first one. That's not the whole point of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is to help make and improve articles not to advertise a new drink not once but TWICE. Think about it and include it in your unblock request. Forres Harriers (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Further 2...

I am still trying to find the reasons why my 2nd revision is considered advertising when it clearly matches the coke and Red Bull layout ...brief intro , history , function , medicinal effects and etc. I list the ingredients but have the same info : origin , introduced , variants etc on the sidebar as well. Pls let me know as I want to fix issues and resolve to be published Wesleyraz (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Still blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wesleyraz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i realize that my original draft for this piece was too persuasive and I am working to correct and edit my drafts to be acceptable and permitted for publish. My content was not spam and not advertising. Thank you for your help and time

Decline reason:

I have examined both drafts, and both were clearly written in a marketing/promotional style. That is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, which is not a free marketing platform. I think it is very unlikely that any admin will unblock you to continue to write about Snoooze, but you are welcome to make a new request and someone else will review it - though I think you would need to show more understanding of the problems with your writing than you have shown so far. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (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.

Wesleyraz (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

I feel bad after working on improving both drafts. Both need to be rewritten and edited for any form of advertising/marketing/promotional style. I clearly acknowledge that this type of content is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, which is not a free marketing platform. Moreover, I believe I deserve at least another opportunity to correct the errors and manage the content as I want to help the community with their sleep drinks and provide coverage of snoooze as it is the only all natural brand, just like Red Bull and Coca Cola for information background and brand content on their respective Wikipedia pages . Wesleyraz (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said, you can make a new unblock request and someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wesleyraz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel bad after working on improving both drafts. Both need to be rewritten and edited for any form of advertising/marketing/promotional style. I clearly acknowledge that this type of content is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, which is not a free marketing platform. Moreover, I believe I deserve at least another opportunity to correct the errors and manage the content as I want to help the community with their sleep drinks and provide coverage of snoooze as it is the only all natural brand, just like Red Bull and Coca Cola for information background and brand content on their respective Wikipedia pages.

Decline reason:

You get unblocked when you agree that you will stop writing about your friend's product. Any unblock request that implies you intend to continue to do so will be declined. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:05, 17 January 2019 (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.

Having investigated your editing further, I see above that you said "I am neutral 3rd party researching, documenting and informing public about Snoooze drink" and that you have just now said "I want to help the community with their sleep drinks". But at User talk:Cullen328 you said "I copied Red Bull outline to provide information on my friend Hans' brand" (my emphasis). And at User talk:Theroadislong, you said "More specifically to give awareness on my friend Hans' brand" (my emphasis again). To "give awareness on my friend Hans' brand" is blatantly marketing/promotion. You are clearly not neutral, you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), and you have not been open and honest with us here in your unblock requests. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked

Yes I am a friend of his that’s where I learned about the product but I am a 3rd party in the neutral sense that I am not affiliated with the company brand or product and have no motive intent or purpose other than to inform the public about this industry, sleep drink category and its only natural sleep drink and product offering. Wesleyraz (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You aren't neutral if you are this person's friend. As such, you aren't going to be unblocked to write about this drink. I would suggest that if you want to inform the public about this drink, that you use social media, a personal website, or the company's website. Wikipedia is not for merely informing the public about any subject. Someone else will review your request, but I don't see a pathway to you being unblocked unless you agree to not write about this drink and tell what it is you will write about or do on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering what purpose of Wikipedia is then if it isn’t to inform and also for the upteenth time what does the Coca Cola and Red Bull Wikipedia pages have that is so different from my draft’s drink content ? Wesleyraz (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Objective, encyclopedic writing. If you do not understand the differences in tone, word choice, and assumptions regarding the audience, you are not competent to write here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is described with the Five Pillars. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the major difference in tone between your drafts and the the Coca Cola and Red Bull articles, one difference is that Coca Cola and Red Bull are clearly notable brands produced by notable global companies. Not every product gets a Wikipedia article - in fact, the vast majority of the world's products do not. The Coca Cola and Red Bull articles were also not written with the aim of providing publicity by friends of the brand owners. You should read WP:N, specifically WP:NCORP for the relevant notability guidelines. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank u for your literary critique ... I am content and apt in the English literature publishing and writing considering my 2 bachelors degrees , law degree and multiple scholarly articles I have had published ...but again thank u regarding this matter Wesleyraz (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't need a new header with every comment you want to make; instead of clicking "New Section" to edit, just click "Edit", either at the top of the page or next to existing section headers. I would also add that the Coca-Cola and Pepsi articles are not written by personal acquaintances of the Coca-Cola or PepsiCo CEO or other employee. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You certainly can't read a style manual or proofread competently, or understand that in anything more significant than a text message to a buddy it is inappropriate, presumptuous, and frankly offensive to your readers to refer to them as "u". I call horsehockey and I am bowing out of this. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

More

I don’t know anything about the author and their relationship with regards to business relations or conflict of interest, but I can’t edit because I am blocked so I have to add new header each time it seems Wesleyraz (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You are blocked, but you should still be able to use the links on edit this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Not allowed to edit due to block. Wesleyraz (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As noted, you should have free and clear access to edit this page only. You should be able to click "edit" at the top of this page, or "edit" next to the existing section headers. If for some reason you can't, just leave the section header blank. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)