User talk:Nashday2016

February 2016

Hello, Daymarcollege. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Daymar College, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Daymarcollege", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is promotional. 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 this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is against Wikipedia's policy: an account is for an individual, not a group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

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.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked because you continued editing as before without responding to Acdixon's comment above. Please respond here. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 11 February 2016 (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).

Nashday2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never edited Wiki Page before, I didn't know even know what I needed to respond to or how to respond. I would like to be unblocked. I kept editing because I was unaware I had done anything wrong, and I only noticed it was not saving my changes I had made. As far as the promotion/advertising issue, I was only editing the page to make sure the information, i.e locations, and history are correct. I believe wiki wants to use correct information on its pages. None of the changes were intended to be promotional or advertising in anyway, shape or form. The edits are minimal. Daymarcollege (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits to Daymar College are completely incompatible with what a reader would expect to see in a neutral point of view encyclopedia. Specifically, this edit adds information that a casual reader wanting to know where the college is and roughly how big it is would not care about - and almost certainly would not in 10 years time. I think to entertain an unblock, I would have to ask you to agree to not edit this article at all. Does this sound reasonable? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:40, 26 February 2016 (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.

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).

Nashday2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

to Ritchie333 I do not agree with not being able to edit the article. I believe in this case the entire article should then be deleted, if indeed you believe the reader would not care about the information. If the article is not deleted, I feel I should have the right to add up to date and relevant information. I am not sure how adding up to date information is not considered neutral. There are a lot of pages on Wiki that have similar information that not every reader is going to care about. I Don't believe you can 100% tell me that every reader is going to care about everything written on a wiki page. Considering the wiki page lists RELEVANT information, such as locations, programs, etc that are not relevant, give readers inaccurate information, and therefor those edits need to be made regardless of the decision about said article

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: This is not an unblock request, it is the continuation of a conversation.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 7 April 2016 (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.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Nashday's concern here. If the case against Daymar has been settled, that should be noted rather than leaving the issue open on the page when it is no longer open in real life. That said, the information added by Nashday was overly detailed and struck me as somewhat sympathetic to Daymar. The allegations are cited to a press release from the (now former) Kentucky Attorney General's office, while the additions (since reverted) by Nashday were cited to a press release from Daymar. That's not really ideal on either side. I'm betting there is some fairly neutral coverage out there about this somewhere. I have access to the Lexington Herald-Leader's archives, but not time to to search them at present.

Might I suggest a compromise agreement whereby Nashday is unblocked and agrees to post suggestions about edits on the article's talk page, to be evaluated and possibly implemented by an experienced editor, rather than directly editing the Daymar College article? I've seen this approach work in other articles, and I used it myself on Talk:Creation Museum, although I did the edits myself after reaching consensus on the talk page. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to Ritchie333 and Acdixon :I would agree with this, I appreciate you understanding what I was getting at Acdixon. I used both articles thinking that it would be fine to use press releases, it was never a thought that it was taking a side. The following article is from a local newspaper called the Messenger, located in Madisonville Kentucky, that has the information needed to update, would that article be suffice? I think acknowledging the lawsuit was settled and linking with this article would solve the issue, then I would only change the listing of location and programs to show updated information. Ritchie333 would this resolve the issue?Nashday2016 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an unblock request for every comment, so I am removing the incomplete code and leaving the rest of your message intact but indented. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]