Shofmeyer

Your submission at Articles for creation: Davis Birks (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Davis Birks may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deleted per WP:CSD#G11 as spam, copyvios noted. – Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello, Shofmeyer! Having an article 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hello, Shofmeyer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Davis Birks, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

• (And User:Shofmeyer.)

– Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

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 ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I visited Puerto Vallarta and saw Davis Birks' work. After checking him out on wikipedia, I noticed that he was referenced in the Guadalajara page as an important artist, but had no content on wikipedia. I then thought I'd add some. I thought it was OK to quote third party websites and make proper references. It appears I need to be more cautious here and limit my contributions to be first hand and be very concise (this is my first submission in years and thought I'd try it out). If unblocked I will make these changes. Thank you. Shofmeyer (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Elsewhere, you have described Davis Birk as your friend. Here, you are not addressing any conflict of interest, which on its face appears to be an attempt to mislead us. Yamla (talk) 12:05, 24 November 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

We purchased a house in Puerto Vallarta and met Davis Birks a few times, so I loosely use the word "Friends" because I think it is a positive thing to call a person a friend - also connected with him on Facebook and may have tweeted and posted about him. If that disqualifies me from posting about him on Wikipedia, I understand and will not submit a reference about him even though he is referenced in other parts of wikipedia. As an FYI, my wife and I are active about a lot of things now in Puerto Vallarta and youtube about our experiences (https://www.youtube.com/user/terminada2). My assumption is that I can't submit wikipedia items from first hand experience if I call a person a "friend" regardless of if I really know them well on social media, but let me know. If I could be unbanned for life that would be wonderful (my main ask here) as that seems quite extreme. I initially wrote a lot about Davis Birks because I am quite thorough and my intent was not to promote on wikipedia. I am relatively new to make updates although I have made a few over the years and apologize for any errors that had no ill intent (ie promotion). I must call fewer people friends that is for sure! ;o) Have a happy holiday time. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Stefan Shofmeyer (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2020 (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, the problem is that the more you know about something, you typically become closer to the topic. For example, a customer probably knows something about a company, an employee of that company probably knows even more, and the CEO probably knows a great deal. However, if this CEO wrote an article about his own company, he'd introduce unconscious bias. Without realizing it, he'd probably excuse any negative attention as a big misunderstanding, and he'd focus much more on the company's accomplishments – no matter how inconsequential or trivial. So, we'd end up with a whitewashed article that covered the company's accomplishments in excrutiating detail. That's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Now, let's say the customer wrote that article. What if that customer had a bad experience? The article would become a hatchet job, which is equally inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

So, who's supposed to write this article, then? Well, it's not so easy to say. Preferably, it would come from someone who is unbiased, informed, and unconnected to the topic. Those kinds of people tend to be rare, so we often settle for someone who is unbiased and unconnected. We encourage people who have first-hand knowledge to use the article's talk page. That way, they can share their knowledge and experience, yet it gets filtered through the unbiased volunteers. It may seem paradoxical at first, but perhaps you can see how extensive first-hand knowledge of a topic can work against you. Obviously, this isn't some kind of rule; there are many subject-matter experts who contribute to Wikipedia. The problem mostly occurs when writing about something with which one has an emotional attachment, such as your friends or job. The other problem with first-hand experiences is that they are original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks NinjaRobotPirate for the well explained response. It is tough to stay unbiased in this biased world. I thought by referencing other material to write the page I was being unbiased, but now I know that has its own downfall - none of what I put was my original content -- all referenced. The sourced content (and me selecting the source content) is flawed - now I understand. From your comments, I believe I should go to the wiki Guadalajara article talk page and request that a Davis Birks page should be created for the reference with his basic bio that I'd provide (with external reference) in talk. Now for my primary ask: Can I get unblocked? I'm one of those "never had a parking or traffic ticket in 48 years of my life" type of people and being blocked indefinitely for promotion or advertising purposes (genuinely not trying to promote or advertise) is killing me! How do I get unblocked? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shofmeyer (talk • contribs)

I have converted your second unblock request to a comment. Only one unblock request should be open at a time. SQL^{Query me!} 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Are there any other subjects that you want to edit about? 331dot (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)