User talk:Beldings

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is against Wikipedia's policy: an account is for an individual, not a group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth 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 kind of 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MER-C 12:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Not sure if I'm doing the formatting of this response correctly. If not, please let me know! I've been blocked for advertising and promotion, as well as an invalid username. First - re: the ad/promo: Guilty - I made 3 ( I think it was 3) edits that were research-based enhancements - quite legit. Then I saw a couple of websites listed in the reference piece at the bottom of a page that were promotional, and figured "huh - I didn't think that was allowed, but apparently it is - I should do that too." My bad, I get it, and it won't happen again. Re: my 'promotional username': That didn't deserve a block. My name is Shaun Belding. 'sbelding' was taken, so I opted for 'beldings.' sbelding is my username for virtually everything (except when it is taken) I will change the name if I have to, but would prefer not to Beldings (talk) 2:16 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

Unblock request is accepted, and you don't need to change your username. Be sure to refrain from WP:COI editing and promotion. If you are not sure whether your intended edit is spam, discuss it first with other editors (you can ask me on my talk page). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, you did not "make edits that were research-based enhancements". Your first ever edit was to add a link to your own company's web page [1]. 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?

Please, take some time to give detailed answer to those questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first couple of links were to a PDF to "The Science of WOW." It is research by our company that was conducted with 930 respondents in 7 North American/South Pacific countries on the common denominators that create positive word-of-mouth. It identifies "service recovery" as the primary driver. It also identifies that "taking ownership in customer service" as a primary driver. It absolutely made sense in the service recovery page. It also made sense in the customer service page, when referring to benefits - where the study illustrates that improved customer service skills creates word-of-mouth. Yes, it is hosted on our website - but it is a credible source nonetheless. I suppose I could have cited Reuters at http://www.reuters.com/article/beldinggrp-custexperi-idUSnPnc95Rvw+84+PRN20151210, but that did not take people directly to the original research document. One other edit I did an edit on customer service training that referred to methodology. I cited a white paper originally created 8 years ago, and updated with new information. It aggregates nine research studies to identify training methodologies which create synthesis and retention. I would think that this would also be legitimate. One edit I made which could be arguably questioned was one that referred to the "7 pillars of customer service." I found the content portion of the Customer Service Training Wikipedia page very thin, and more needed to be added. I also saw the note at the top saying that there were no sources cited. Rather than list all of the additional content pieces, I simply added the 7 pillars as a source. In future I will just add relevant content with no potential CoI sources. Beldings (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that Wikipedia is encyclopedia, and any kind of promotion is forbidden. Adding links to a research made by your company is considered a kind of promotion. Do you intend to answer two questions I posted above? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand both questions, and am trying really hard to contribute in a positive way. So, do I understand correctly that I can make edits, but am mot allowed to cite research by our company,matter how relevant or legitimate. If that is the case, then fine. I am just trying to understand.Beldings (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so simple. By the way, did you read WP:COI? You are not allowed to make any edit that can be viewed as promotional, like adding links to your company or its work, without discussing it first with other editors. But you are allowed to propose such edits on the talk page, and to seek consensus with other editors. If a link is really useful, other editors will support your proposal, and then it can be included. I asked you to give detailed answers to the two questions, something I still don't see. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave extremely detailed answers to your questions. I didn't realize you required detailed answers to the two 'do you understand' questions. Sorry. Yes I had read the pieces you sent me, but being new to this, am still learning the process.

I may make a comment: I am new to this. I was quite excited about making a contribution to Wikipedia, and I do understand what it is. Clearly I've made some errors early on, but I think it is important that you understand that my intent on joining the community was not for any nefarious purposes. To be honest - I was disappointed that you didn't just reach out to me and say - "hey - that's not cool - don't do that," or "make sure you propose edits on your talk page first" - and I would have fixed everything instantly. The account block was not necessary - there was a better way.Beldings (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Beldings! You created a thread called How to flag a something suspicious at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]