User talk:TechWriter87: Difference between revisions

Line 26: Line 26:

*::I am happy to promise that I will stay away from editing the Kreon Technologies article (or any drafts about it), especially until I gain a lot more experience to write an article which is conform with the community’s standard before I’m ready to handle a topic with neutrality, constructiveness and verified facts.

*::As for a constructive edit, “for example, I noticed that on the Coordinate Measuring Machines page, the section regarding the articulated arm doesn’t mention the specific international standards used for performance verification.

*::If unblocked, a neutral edit I’d like to make is to add a brief, factual and subsection about ISO 10360-12:2016. This is a specific standard for articulated arms that defines how probing and scanning errors are measured. I can provide a neutral summary of what the standards cover (like the Probing Form error and Articulation Location Error) using the official ISO documentation as a source, without mentioning any brands or equipment.”

*:: unblocked, a neutral edit I’d like to make is to add a brief, factual and subsection about ISO 10360-12:2016. This is a specific standard for articulated arms that defines how probing and scanning errors are measured. I can provide a neutral summary of what the standards cover (like the Probing Form error and Articulation Location Error) using the official ISO documentation as a source, without mentioning any brands or equipment.”

*::I really just want to be a helpful member of the technical community here. I appreciate the second chance to get this right.

*::Thank you so much for your time! [[User:TechWriter87|TechWriter87]] ([[User talk:TechWriter87#top|talk]]) 13:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, website, or role, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
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; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text “Your proposed new username” with your new username and replace the text “Your reason here” with your reasons to be unblocked. If you are having trouble, you may want to try using the unblock wizard.

Before requesting a new username, check if it is still available. If the search says “There is no global account for [username]”, the username is free to use.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text “Your reason here” with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the edit. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KREONTECHNOLOGIES (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed your account. Another uninvolved admin will review your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi! Writing an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It is even more difficult to do so as a new user, and doubly so if you are paid to do it. You need significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources; the vast majority of companies on Earth do not meet our inclusion criterion. I encourage you to read WP:BOSS and show it to your boss. I am not sure that Kreon Technologies meets our criterion; are you willing to promise to stay away from editing about it, especially until you gain a lot more experience?

Also, you say you understand why [your] edits were considered inappropriate; could you be a bit more specific? Elaborating on this comment could help administrators know that you do truly understand what you did wrong, and if unblocked will not do it again. It might also help to give a specific example of one such neutral, constructive edit you’d like to make, if unblocked.

Do make sure you use your own words to respond, instead of a large language model—it is okay if you don’t have perfect grammar or spelling, but you are blocked, not AI, and we’d much rather hear from you.

Thank you! GoldRomean (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. I’ve gone through the links you shared, including the WP:BOSS , and I definitely have a much clearer and better vision of what I did wrong.

Firstly, looking back, I realised that I was approaching Wikipedia like a standard platform where you sign up to represent your organisation, just like other professional platforms, but I didn’t pay enough attention to the fact that there could be a policy existing against the ‘corporate’ username for Wikipedia.

Secondly, I also see that my writing was promotional, which shows the company’s strengths and client base. For example, I wrote in one of the article’s sections, “Kreon has served several clients across the world, namely…”, which now I find inappropriate and invalid as per Wikipedia community guidelines.

I tried to follow the language styles, tonality, and structure of other pages similar to the professional domain as ours, but I didn’t realise that those pages are only there because of their significant, independent third-party coverage, which I didn’t provide.

I am happy to promise that I will stay away from editing the Kreon Technologies article (or any drafts about it), especially until I gain a lot more experience to write an article which is conform with the community’s standard before I’m ready to handle a topic with neutrality, constructiveness and verified facts.

As for a constructive edit, “for example, I noticed that on the Coordinate Measuring Machines page, the section regarding the articulated arm doesn’t mention the specific international standards used for performance verification.

Lastly, if unblocked, a neutral edit I’d like to make is to add a brief, factual and subsection about ISO 10360-12:2016. This is a specific standard for articulated arms that defines how probing and scanning errors are measured. I can provide a neutral summary of what the standards cover (like the Probing Form error and Articulation Location Error) using the official ISO documentation as a source, without mentioning any brands or equipment.”

I really just want to be a helpful member of the technical community here. I appreciate the second chance to get this right.

Thank you so much for your time! TechWriter87 (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply