User talk:IfLcomms

May 2011

Hello IfLcomms. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Institute for Learning, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011 - please engage in discussion about the way the page should go!

Hi, I see that someone who would appear to be from IfL headquarters is again editing this entry - I think it old be worthwhile if you engaged with the community and collective nature of wikipedia by contributing to the discussion page for the IfL page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Institute_for_Learning where a discussion has already started, but you have not contributed to. The last time someone from the IfL took part in editing this page in March this year they undertook significant vandalism - see user Qqawestry (previously called John d'purprook - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_d%27Purbrook ) and the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial/Archive_16#Institute_for_Learning it would be worth discussing things with the rest of the people with an interest in this page before making significant edits, and considering the source of the information before it is added - particularly if it is just copied and pasted from the IfL website. Sonicslice (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 July 2011

Hi Again, I'm really disappointed that you don't feel able to engage in discussion with other contributors about this article, your most recent edit (17:10, 28 July 2011) has reinstated information which is an embellished opinion, rather than a factual account of what was stated, specifically in the section on regulatory enforcement* you have stated that it says the answers states they must be members of the IfL - the written answer does not actually state this in any uncertain terms and the removal of this section of the sentence is accurate - no matter what your personal interpretation of the answer, it doesn't say what you have said it does.

Sorry this is Sonicslice as above. 86.144.63.91 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(*the section is not about the back ground of the regulatory aspects of the IfL, it's about how parliament is continuing to enforce it - hence the title.)

30 July 2011

Please engage in discussion over this article, your approach to using wikipededia is not in line with wikipedia's 5 pillars because of your refusal to interact with the other users - see WP:NICE I've now asked three times if you would actually use the articles talk page to discuss the way the article is written or I will resort to taking action to remove all of the content which does not meet with WP:NPOV

Sonicslice (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 August 2011

We are aware of the guidelines and wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and are taking great care to only edit the following: To correct formatting and spelling update and correct factual information. We are also seeking further references and citations to be added to some of the earlier sections of this article. IfL’s policy is that amendments made by IfL will be through the username “IfLcomms” only. We were unaware of the My talk section previously and now that we have seen your comments will seek to engage with fellow editors and explain amendments. --IfLcomms (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Institute for Learning, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 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, please see how to appeal a block.

--Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please note we are not using Wikipedia for promotion, we do not link to Wikipedia from the IfL website or from any of our communications. We believe that we have only edited text to correct and update, using a neutral position. We were unaware of the rules on the username and were using this so that it would be clear who was editing as is our policy. We would be grateful if you could unblock us so that we may test any further edits in the Sandbox to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's rules. IfLcomms (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not permit any kind of corporate or other collective accounts at any time. Only individual human beings can have accounts here. Additionally, we don't permit accounts here who have no purpose other than to edit articles in which they have a conflict of interest; and you show no sign of understanding that. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]