User talk:SSMO Campus

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Valfontis (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z15

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

new username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

We are not interested in updating Wikipedia for promotional purposes, simply for accuracy related to the Sisters of St. Mary of Oregon and their campus. Because personnel may change over time, we were hoping to create access information that could remain consistent. Thank you for your guidance. SSMO Campus (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. Please, only one open unblock request at a time. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "new username" with an actual username, and please note that we don't allow shared accounts (see m:Role account). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:32, 19 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

At this time, I am not aware of any staff members who wish to create accounts in their own names. The easiest way would be to update our user name to meet your guidelines - and ensure that it is not shared or transferred - but we are having difficulties finding the directions on doing that easily. Is there a quick way to do that through account setttings? Thank for your continued guidance.. SSMO Campus (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2014 (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.

You cannot change your own username, and you need to stop using plural pronouns. You need to replace the "new username" in your previous request with an actual new username, otherwise you won't get unblocked to place a username change request. (And it doesn't have to be their own names; they can use a pseudonym). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: This is an example of why the information about organizations is frequently outdated or incorrect on Wikipedia pages. It usually falls to someone in a communications office - and the staff members who are asked to ensure that information is current - to do this. They may not wish to create their own Wikipedia user name or account. Additionally, in any organization, staffing changes, people move on without closing out accounts, and someone has to start the process over again and experience the same frustration as I (personal pronoun) have. I'm going to leave the SSMO campus pages (because that's what they are) as they are. At this time, it's not worth the frustration of trying to update them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.80.174 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we don't allow shared accounts to edit is mainly because it causes issues with the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses all Wikipedia content is licensed under (like, say, someone who wrote content under the account stops using the account; per those licenses the edits are the editor's, not the account's). Likewise, the reason we do not allow users to change their own usernames at will is because changing usernames is an intensive action server-side, as all edits and logged actions that were attributed under the old name now have to be attributed under the new name (this is also why it may take a few days after a username change for all edits to show up under the new username). I understand it may be frustrating, but we have perfectly valid reasonings to disallow both freely changing usernames and role accounts. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

A suggestion from me, the administrator who blocked you, and the primary editor who keeps an eye on Sisters of St. Mary of Oregon, one of the articles you edited. You are always free to put suggestions about edits on the talk page of an article. We (the Wikipedia community) cannot guarantee that the article about your organization will be exactly as you want it but I for one try to be fair. The update you made was helpful (although it broke the references), the only thing I really changed was to take out the word "rich" which is somewhat not neutral and can be seen as promotional. Which may be why another editor immediately reverted the changes. I have never had time to write up an expanded history about the origins of the community, that would be a good place to start as far as suggesting some edits. Let me know if you need more suggestions. I'm adding a belated welcome template after this post so you can read up on some of the principles behind Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Valfontis (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, SSMO Campus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! Valfontis (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Here is some info about what to do if you have conflict of interest in a Wikipedia article.

Hello, SSMO Campus. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Valfontis (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC) First, thank you for your generous message and welcome. This is the first time that I (personal pronoun) have made an effort to add fresh information on a Wikipedia page – one that was badly outdated. As a first-time visitor, I found the system confusing and the initial responses seemed hostile – as if it was automatically assumed that I was trying to go around the rules or do an improper post – rather than trying to make two pages more accurate and current. If the messages I received last night – a welcome and guidance to basic information about Wikipedia – had come first, this would have been a better experience for me and, I suspect, for those of you who are asked to maintain the system. Over the weekend, I will read through those pages. I believe that a reference to adding information in a “talk” area might be a good way to move forward. That would allow the reviewers to ensure that everything is correct. Moving forward: a suggestion. Beyond server and maintenance issues, there are important reasons why you are careful about who posts content. But it would be a shame if you automatically assumed bad intentions. My experience may explain why the last update on the Valley Catholic page (part of the SSMO campus) was in 2008. If you hadn’t written again last night, I would have probably left it for someone to try again in 2014. The Valley Catholic page looks current but I see a note that there is too much white space. I'm not sure if I can get on there to address it. And, as you noted, the information on the Sisters of St. Mary of Oregon page (the other page representing the SSMO campus) is badly outdated and the Sisters have a very “rich” history. I will take some time to think about what would be of interest to your readers and how best to suggest those additions. Thank you again. Have a good weekend. 69.30.80.174 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]