User talk:Filipeuni

January 2016

Please read WP:EXT and WP:SPAM. Your external link additions that I have checked so far have not been appropriate. Meters (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:Minor. Content changes are not minor edits.Meters (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--John (talk) 20:42, 6 January 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).

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

Request reason:

Apologies, I thought I was adding value by adding the appropriate links based on the brand and it's significance to the edits. I have read the documentation presented by the other editors and now have a better idea on how and when to add them. I've never edited before and I thought it was pretty straightforward. I appeal to your more understanding nature as this information was indeed meant to allow users to find more context if they so desired in the external link sections (where appropriate). I will do so more carefully and with better focus in the future. Thanks for the consideration.

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked unless you agree to stop canvassing Univision related links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 6 January 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).

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

Request reason:

I agree. I am just worried now, with regard to when I can add links to our content - particularly when it's appropriate, without instantly being banned. We offer tons of shows, properties and talent that people want to know about and that are culturally significant... So any advice on that would be helpful.

Decline reason:

You are never allowed to do this. Max Semenik (talk) 15:31, 7 January 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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Ok, what about actual edits that are meant to update links that already existed? To bring them current?

Accept reason:

I accept your unblock request under condition that you make no edits related to Univision (broadly construed) in the WP:main namespace. You are, of course, welcome to discuss such edits on talk pages. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will let another admin review this latest unblock request. To help you, as a general rule, it is better not to edit subjects one is in a relationship with. You say "our" above; are you an employee of Univision? --John (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, your response is the friendliest of the communications I've received other than the original editor "Meters". I do think my appeals have been met with extreme prejudice honestly, and yes I am an employee trying to update old information for the most part.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipeuni (talk • contribs)

No worries. I am sure nobody is trying to be unfriendly but this is a fairly common situation and it is one we have established procedures for. You can read more at WP:COI but basically your best recourse would be to make a suggestion at a talk page or a project talk page, and let others implement it if they agree it is a good idea. For you to edit material on the company you work for would create an impression of conflict of interest, however harmless these edits might seem to you (and might indeed actually be). I would be happy to unblock you if you undertook not to make any more edits direct to articles relating to your employer. In return I will help to guide you how to make the necessary proposals and see if there is consensus to do them. As an extra reward, if you like there are another three million articles to edit which don't relate to your employer. You may find it highly rewarding as many of us have over the years. --John (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John I agree then to not post directly and would appreciate your guidance in getting changes recommended in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipeuni (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to check any requests you make too. If I remember correctly, many of your original edits were to add or modify external links to your company's pages on various shows. Even some of the existing links were pretty questionable. Meters (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the older links were questionable and I believe I removed any duplicates or non-directly related ones. We've made massive sweeping changes to our sites in the last 6-14 months so I just wanted to update our links initially. You'll notice many of the ones before my edits were legacy, IE: channel.jhtml or content.jhtml plus parameters (which do not exist now and may not be mapped for a redirect). I appreciate your concern and assistance in keeping wiki quality and relevance as high as possible.

What I meant by "questionable" was that some of the existing external links pointing to your site should probably not be included in the articles at all. Meters (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Filipeuni. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]