User talk:Employee Röchling

My name is Mareike and I work at Röchling SE & Co. KG. I would like to work with the community to update pages related to the Röchling Group and the Röchling family. Please do not hesistate to contact me if you have any questions.

Mareike at Röchling (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about your employer

Hi Mareike, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for being willing to work within Wikipedia's guidelines for updating information about your company.

You need to be aware before you start that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages direct edits by users who work for or represent the subject of an article. This is because such edits create a conflict of interest - you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines before starting to edit. In particular, if you work for Röchling, you need to disclose this properly - the simplest way to do so is to copy the following code and paste it onto your userpage (that's the page you get to when you click on your username at the top of the screen):

{{paid|employer=[[Röchling Group]]}}

Unless you are fixing obvious vandalism, you should avoid making any direct edits to pages where you have a conflict of interest. Instead, please use the Requested Edit process. Make requests on the talkpage of articles which need to be updated, and include references to reliable sources that support your proposed edits. Other editors will then make the changes for you, to avoid any conflict of interest.

If you need help at any time, you can add the code {{help me}} to this page, followed by your question, and another editor will shortly be along to assist. You can also get help and advice at the Teahouse or the Helpdesk. Happy editing! Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Johannes von Salmuth

Hello, Mareike at Röchling. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Johannes von Salmuth".

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 edit the submission 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please don't use the Minor Edit flag when making substantial changes. The Minor Edit flag should only be used for small, uncontroversial changes, such as spelling corrections or adding punctuation. Edits like this, which added over a kilobyte of new content, are not minor, and edits that you make to a page where you have a conflict of interest should never be assumed to be uncontroversial. In fact - as discussed above - you ought to be using the Requested Edit process for updates like this, rather than making them yourself. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous blocked account

Can you please provide a diff showing where you were granted exemption to the block on your previous account, User:Röchling-Gruppe? As far as I can see, you are still blocked under that account, which means that every edit you have made to Wikipedia with this account is an instance of block evasion. When we block someone, the block applies to the person operating the account as well as to the account itself, meaning that unless you have been granted some sort of dispensation, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any capacity except to appeal that block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I do not believe that you were ever granted permission to create a new account. You did open a discussion with the blocking administrator here, but the thread was archived some months later without a response. As such, edits made by this account constitute block evasion, and I am blocking this account accordingly. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry for this trouble. Please let me explain what happened: At first I used my account User:Röchling-Gruppe, which was originally from the German Wikipedia. I didn't know the account’s name was against the English username policy. I'm sorry for my mistake. After this trouble I created the new, verified account User:Mareike at Röchling to follow all Wikipedia guidelines from now on. But when I tried changes on an article this account was temporarily blocked too, because of using the same IP-address. And now I am blamed to be a sock puppet. Please help me getting out of this.Thank you.

Accept reason:

I am accepting your unblock request on the basis of the discussion below. I waited a couple of days in case the blocking administrator might comment, but for the reasons I gave below I don't think it would be a good idea to wait indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your mistake was that you should not have created this account until your block of your original account was resolved. Technically, you should return to your original account and request to be unblocked there; but since this username is compliant with policy and the other is not, you should address the original reason for the block here (promotional editing). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the situation is as follows.

Your original account was blocked for two reasons: the user name, and promotional editing.
The user name problem has been taken care of by your creating a new account. You should not have done that without first getting approval from an administrator for you to return to editing, but it was done in good faith, and I see no point in dwelling on that.
You have never tried to hide the fact of your using two accounts, nor to use them deceptively. Indeed, your first edits with your new account were posting to your user page and talk page about your employment, and your first edit with the account outside your own user space informed the administrator who had blocked the first account of your use of two accounts.
I have examined the editing history of both accounts, and I can't see anything promotional.
The blocking administrator chose not to reply to your message in which you told him of your two accounts, nor to take any other action, such as blocking your new account. He left your message on his talk page for almost three and a half months, and then removed it without comment. That effectively means that he had decided to allow you to continue with the new account.

In view of those considerations I will be willing to unblock this account provided you give an undertaking to comply with Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. As a matter of courtesy I invite the blocking administrator, Longhair, to comment about this if he wants to. However, recently he has been editing sporadically, often with periods of months between edits, so there could be a long wait for him to answer, and considering also the fact that he didn't have anything to say when you posted to him, it is quite likely that he won't wish to comment this time either. In view of those two facts I think it would be unfair to keep you waiting for a long time for an answer, so I will be willing to go ahead and close the matter one way or the other if he doesn't comment within a reasonably short time frame. Although you should technically have requested an unblock on your original account, under the circumstances if you are unblocked it is only reasonable that it be this account that is unblocked, and having two unblock requests open on different talk pages serves no useful purpose and risks wasting administrators' time, so I shall decline your unblock request on the other account. Please make any more posts on this page, to keep everything together. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. If you post here again and would like me to see your message, please ping me. In case you don't know how to do that, include in your message the text {{Ping|JamesBWatson}}, and also make sure that you sign the post by including ~~~~. I will then be automatically notified of your message. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @JamesBWatson: I would like to thank you very much for your consideration. I am happy that I can edit Wikipedia entries again and hope to make valuable contributions to other entries in the future. I will surely use only this account in the future and comply with Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. Mareike at Röchling (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]