User talk:Kaity.Springvale

Hi SpringvaleLibrary! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 16:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "SpringvaleLibrary", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use by an organization. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Hamtechperson 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page, User:SpringvaleLibrary, has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be advertising which only promoted or publicized someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, or web site, 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:

1. Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
2. 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
3. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
4. 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.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

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 page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: This is a courtesy notification that this account's username has been changed from "SpringvaleLibrary" to "Kaity.Springvale" via a global request. If the old username was the only reason for the block, their username now complies with the username policy and the account can be unblocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I signed up for Wikipedia and started the tutorial last week without reading the rules first, sorry. I'll do my best to finish the tutorial and learn what I need to before I make any (more) changes. Thank you!

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I signed up for Wikipedia and started the tutorial last week without reading the rules first, sorry. I'll do my best to finish the tutorial and learn what I need to before I make any (more) changes. Thank you! |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I signed up for Wikipedia and started the tutorial last week without reading the rules first, sorry. I'll do my best to finish the tutorial and learn what I need to before I make any (more) changes. Thank you! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I signed up for Wikipedia and started the tutorial last week without reading the rules first, sorry. I'll do my best to finish the tutorial and learn what I need to before I make any (more) changes. Thank you! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Are you planning to write about the library? PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly on the talk page? I understand that I'm not allowed to write on the page directly due to my conflict of interest, so I'm mostly planning to do research on what other libraries have on their wikipedia pages. And helping with small edits on other pages that I have no conflicts for. Is that okay? Kaity.Springvale (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Kaity. I'm a library assistant and my interests include books, reading, and libraries. I'm still on mission one on the tutorial, so I'm not 100% sure I'm doing this correctly, but I am an employee of the Springvale Public Library, and while I'm not being paid to edit wikipedia, I am being paid and I am interested in editing wikipedia? The wording I found on libraries was "The Wikimedia community distinguishes branding and marketing from expertise and knowledge." So I'm hoping this works? Apologies in advance if I'm still wrong!

Kaity.Springvale (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this FAQ entry, you would only need the paid editing disclosure if you're editing specifically on behalf of the library and you are being paid to make specific edits that the library wants made. If the library is simply encouraging you to contribute to Wikipedia in general without giving any specific "edit this" asks, you wouldn't need the paid editing message.

As the person who placed the initial username notice here on your talk page, my primary concern was that your original username made it appear that the account was for you and all your coworkers, maybe the board too. Your rename request clears that up in my view. An administrator would be able to see the deleted version of your userpage and determine if there's anything there that needs addressing, but my concerns were satisfied by the rename, and nothing I've seen here on your talk page indicates any issues beyond the clumsy first forays into Wikipedia of someone who didn't quite delve into all the relevant policies and their related arcana, but is here to help build the encyclopedia and is trying her best to learn and take onboard the information she's being given. I hope you keep that attitude and willingness to learn and help the project; they will both serve you well here. Hamtechperson 15:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamtechperson This is not accurate, any form of paid relationship with a topic triggers the disclosure requirement. Specific instructions to edit or specific payment to edit is not required. Employment is absolutely, 100% a paid editing relationship. As an "assistant" it absolutely falls within the scope of their duties to make edits. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot I think I'll take the Foundation's own word on what the TOU means, thanks.

For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university.
The same is true with GLAM employees. Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution.

— Wikimedia Foundation, Frequently asked questions on paid contributions without disclosure, How does this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM")?

If enwiki's policy is different, it should be clearly documented somewhere on wiki, and added to meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. Since it's not there as WMF requires an alternative policy to be, I can only assume the default applies and thus the guidance from WMF is still good. There's a difference between paid to edit and being paid and editing. I expect a significant proportion of editors have jobs; some may even edit during paid rest breaks. I'm sure you'd agree that doesn't constitute paid editing either. Hamtechperson 16:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an employee making edits about their employer, not someone making random edits while at work. If merely stating that one was not asked by their employer to edit about their employer was sufficient to avoid disclosure, the policy would be toothless as every paid editor would deny being asked to edit. I'm hardly the only admin that sees it this way. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I myself edit during paid breaks, but I never edit about my employer which theoretically could fall within the scope of my job duties. Editing while on the clock is not paid editing, editing about your employer is. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I edited my request to just be an 'unblock' request because my username switch has already happened. I think I'm starting to understand a little more about the way things work on here, so thank you so much to Hamtechperson for being helpful and explaining things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaity.Springvale (talk • contribs)

@Kaity.Springvale: Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. It's important to know who said what, and when. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]