User talk:Sremo44

Welcome!

Hello, Sremo44, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Bra, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kleuske (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thank you for clarifying this. Is there still a version of the changes made on each of the pages so we can take a look at what is a valued addition or what is acceptable? I believe I used acceptable source material and updated the pages in a factual manner versus something subjective. I understand your concerns of a conflict of interest and would be happy to have those changes reviewed since you've sent over these helpful tips.

To give you an understanding of my background - I worked as an investigative journalist for years and became very familiar with Glamorise in another capacity. I was shocked I had never heard of them despite their contributions to the plus-size community, charities, and innovations in the bra and manufacturing industries. I have independently reviewed their practices and am very knowledgable about what they do. This process has taken over two years. Because of this knowledge, the company has hired me to offer brand awareness as its something they have never done before. Despite being hired by them, I would only write something I can objectively confirm.

It appears Glamorise was removed completely from the sports bra page about inventing the first one. It was already there prior to my editing and can be confirmed through multiple sources. Could that previous version at least be restored while my contributions are reviewed by an editor? Thanks so much for your help. Sremo44 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sremo44: Before you make any further edits to Wikipedia, please review and comply with the terms of Wikipedia's mandatory policy on disclosure of paid editing. The recommended way to display your status as a paid editor is by using the {{paid}} template on your userpage (User:Sremo44).

It is then highly advised that you do not edit the article directly, but instead learn how to make edit requests on the article's talk page (Talk:Bra), which can be independently reviewed by uninvolved editors.

Looking at the revision history and some of the edits you contributed, I can tell you that some of the sources you used are considered either unreliable or of questionable reliability. Here is a page of commonly discussed sources. For example, you will find that Medium is considered to be an unreliable source. Bustle's reliability is also unclear. However, a broadsheet newspaper like the LA Times will be considered reliable. If a source isn't listed here and you're not sure how the Wikipedia community will view its reliability, you can also check the reliable sources noticeboard. You can either post a question about a source, or search through archived discussions to check if it has been discussed in the past. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the paid contributor template to my userpage — if I update this template, will it be my personal disclosure page or does it make global changes to the template itself? I don't want to mess something up. Sremo44 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have used the wrong template. {{Connected contributor (paid)}} is to used on the talk page of the article you are requesting edits for (e.g. Talk:Bra). The template you should be using on your userpage is {{paid}}.

Using the template on your userpage will personalize it for you only - it won't make any changes globally. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Could I get a copy of the changes I made so I can go through the proper channel and request edits?

Also, could the sports bra page be updated to the version before my edit? Glamorise was already mentioned as the inventor of the sports bra and it was deleted completely with my changes. Sremo44 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the one of my questions about getting a of copy of changes - I found where to look. But, I still do want to ask about reverting to the previous sports bra version before my changes. thanks! Sremo44 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revision history of the Sports bra article shows that the editor Kleuske reverted your changes for the reason "WP:PROMO" (shorthand for promotional editing). If you want to engage in discussion with them about why they reverted your changes, you could do so at their talk page.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glamorise Foundations (January 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Many of the sources and the content is about the industry as whole with Glamorise not even mentioned in the source so useless for an article about Glamorise. Other sources are primary or not reliable. The draft also is written like an advert.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Glamorise Foundations and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sremo44! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Glamorise Foundations

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:Glamorise Foundations, 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. GPL93 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sremo44 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Sremo44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello- I am reviewing issues with the article and have some answers regarding sources and would like an opportunity to edit this article until it meets Wikipedia standards. I appreciate the Wiki rules and am trying to understand them all, including updating my userpage with contribution info and creating an article in sandbox and suggesting edits versus making them live. My intention is not to create something considered overly promotional and didn't realize this article would be flagged for this, especially to the point of blocking. My apologies for this.

While I have provided that I do have a conflict of interest, if an editor were to look at the sources supplied, including various United States Patents and contributions to the bra industry over the course of 100 years, I believe the article does warrant publishing in some fashion — obviously not in its current state, but I am more than willing to improve it. In regards to "non reliable sources" as an issue - I did already see that Medium is generally not considered a reliable source, but the writer and editor of the article/publication that publishes through Medium are actually regarded journalists published in Forbes, Entrepreneur and others. There are other sources listed that do profile the company and what its offered the plus size community, including the Curvy Fashionista, which was one of the first curvy-focused publications. The company did not post this article, nor is the Curvy Fashionista a blog. They have a strong following and are a significant for the plus-size community. The company was also featured in Body Magazine twice, which is sourced for a sports bra invention and collaboration with Amazon.

In addition, I also reviewed some of Glamorise's direct competitors to see how their pages are written and sources are cited to ensure I was aware of the standards they were published to - specifically Wacoal, Bali, and Thirdlove and Lane Bryant. Just looking at Wacoal's sources, much of them being from their own website, I truly thought my article on Glamorise was more thorough with better sourcing. Some of the other brands I listed also have sourcing and promotional issues based on the Wiki guidelines. While these pages are not directly correlated to mine, I didn't think my contribution would lead to ban because other pages with fewer sources exist. I would like the chance to be unblocked so that I can adequately, and within the guidelines, contribute to Wiki and an acceptable article on Glamorise and others.Sremo44 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as unresponsive. You may make a new request. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2023 (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.

Hi Sremo44, please note that the inclusion of promotional material in another article is not an excuse for editors who are proposing it for articles they are writing (per WP:OTHERSPAM). There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia, and volunteers are not able to read every article to ensure that they comply with our policies. In regards to sources like Medium, most editors will not look favourably for it to be used as a source because of the self-published nature of the source. That, coupled with the fact that you are a paid contributor, means that you should discuss its addition on the article's talk page before adding it to the article.

Before you are unblocked, I need to feel confident that you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please read WP:PAID and WP:SPAM and answer the following questions:

What constitutes promotional language, and how would you change your proposed text to ensure that it is not promotional?
Do you commit to using the Edit Request Wizard to propose changes to articles in which you have a conflict of interest?

Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]