User talk:Prplns

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked. I realize now that I did not understand how Wikipedia worked. I was instructed to edit our page and not engage with anyone. Clearly, this is a community and not just a website. I have taken my own time to read your policies and guidelines. I have explained to my management that I cannot simply edit our page because that could lead to biased information. While we did not agree with what was on our page, I understand now that we DO need to engage the community of editors, properly state our case and let you decide what information is impartial. I am requesting an unblock so that I may speak (write?) with the editors and ask my questions and learn more about how to properly go about editing. I would also like to thank the editors who have recently made changes to our page that took out what we believed was unfair. I feel that they deserve to know their efforts are appreciated. I kindly ask that you take into account that I have learned the hard way what needs to be done and I intend to uphold your policies. Thank youPrplns (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - no response after 3 days. PhilKnight (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I answered all of the questions below. I could not log on until 6/14/16 - because I was not at work. I answered the last question on the same day the person denied my request for not logging on for 3 days. I did not know I only had 3 days to answer a question. Is that standard policy? Just asking for future reference. Like I've said many times now, I'm genuinely trying to learn what the policies are. Thank youPrplns (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

To answer your query 3 days to respond is a custom around here. Anyway, I'm unblocking your account on the basis that you use the talk page to propose changes to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key questions for unblock

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?

Yes, I understand that it is a place where people may come to find impartial information, not advertising.

Do you understand conflict of interest?

Yes, we are not to edit our own page nor pay anyone else to edit on our behalf. We are to suggest changes through proper channels. I am still trying to learn those channels. While you may think things are clearly written in the "help" section, I find some of it confusing and by unblocking me I can converse with the Wikipedia community to gain a greater understanding of how information is edited. There was content on our page that was clearly not impartial and I do not understand how it was allowed on there to begin with. It has been removed and I do not understand how that happened either. I am trying to learn - properly.

Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

Yes.

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the three important principles above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken full responsibility for my actions. I explained that I was doing what I was told and have since learned that it was completely contrary to all of Wikipedia's policies. I explained that to my superiors and made it clear that there are proper Wikipedia channels to go through and I will have to take the time to learn them. If there is information we believe is false, we are to present it to you, the editors and let you decide if the source is reliable and if the content should stand. I have apologized and I apologize again. I am honestly trying to learn all I can.Prplns (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree to stop removing sourced content, and to discuss non-trivial content changes the article's talk page instead? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will not remove content and to utilize the talk page.Prplns (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Request

I am looking to place our logo on our page. From what I have read, I believe you need to have proof of copy write permission to use the logo. My question is, do I need to supply proof of copy write when submitting the logo or do I just submit it and I just say we have proof in case anything happens in the future where we would need to supply it if requested? To be honest, I'm still not sure where I upload it to. I don't want to just add it to the page and get blocked. Do I submit it somewhere else first? Thank you.Prplns (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to have the last paragraph of the Nova Science Publishers page removed

"Nova has been criticized for not always evaluating authors through the academic peer review process[8] and for republishing, at high prices, old public domain book chapters and freely-accessible government reports as if they were new.[8][9] These criticisms prompted librarian Jeffrey Beall to write that in his opinion Nova Science Publishers was at the "bottom-tier" of publishers.[10]"

Source #8 is based on a PDF which is not a reliable source. Anyone can type up a PDF. Jeffry Beall's comments (#10) are based on that PDF which makes his comments mere opinion and not fact.

I kindly ask that someone review this and remove these opinions since Wikipedia is based on factual information. Thank youPrplns (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Prplns. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]