User talk:LLC88

Welcome!

Hello, LLC88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was International Childfree Day, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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! Chuka Chief (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:51, 15 July 2020 (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).

LLC88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no intention of promotion, merely to link to url's that accurately state. Who Should be blocked is who keeps editing back and citing antinatalist links and people. This is very unrepresentative of International Childfree Day and that person is editing for their own antinatalist purposes. At the very least, delete the last sentence, or allow me to add others to more accurately represent who have been International Childfree Day winners. Thank you. Laura Carroll LLC88 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2020 (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).

LLC88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please allow me to try again. It's clear I am learning wikipedia the hard way...I truly did not intend to promote, just write the article so that it represented the facts about International Childfree Day. I absolutely did not intend to damage or disrupt wikipedia - I highly respect this site! I now see that how wiki reads what I wrote as promotion, so can live with the way it is written, except the last sentence which I still think is there for promotional purposes of the writer; s/he is just doing it smartly within wiki rules. I certainly will not do anything to damage or disrupt, and will do my best to make useful contributions. It really was what I intended to do at the outset. Again, I am learning the ropes of how best to contribute to this site, and apologize for anything that is read and interpreted that should be blocked under wiki rules. I truly hope I can edit just the last sentence of this article with acceptable links to other people, so as to not misrepresent the people who win awards on International Childfree Day. Sincerely, Laura Carroll LLC88 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to have a common misconception about Wikipedia in that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You have a conflict of interest about the topic you wrote about, and as such you will not be unblocked to further directly edit about it. If that is your only goal here, this is the end of the road for your Wikipedia career. If there are topics unrelated to your conflict of interest you want to edit about, please tell what those might be. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2020 (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.

Can the last sentence be edited to this to more factually represent the winners: "Winners include Belgian writer Théophile de Giraud [1], Emma Palmer [2],Vincent Ciaccio [3] and Krystal Brown [4]. While I have been recommended by a wiki rep via email (who is helping me understand the rules) that I request to make suggestions through editing the discussion page, rather than the article itself due to a conflict of interest, I would like to do what else I can to eliminate the conflict of interest. Thank you, Laura Carroll LLC88 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You only need one open unblock request; subsequent comments should be standard, unformatted comments like this. You may not edit by proxy if blocked; you need to successfully request unblock first. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2020 (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).

LLC88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do understand further, but there are not other sources to cite than what is on the site. In any case, I do understand. However, I challenge that Theo de Girard's source is an 'independent, reliable source.' The link goes to His wiki Page, which promotes him. This seems unfair. Can this last sentence just be deleted and we can be done. I am so upset by this, and find the harsh responses surprising. I appreciate explanation but it is given in such a way as to insinuate I have less than positive motives, and this is far from the truth. Sincerely, Laura Carroll

Decline reason:

LLC88 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2020 (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).

LLC88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Correction: the citations to the people in the last sentence that I added do not go to the International Childfree Day site. I thought this would be acceptable as it does not go the site itself. I do not understand why the links except for the one that links to a wiki page in the last sentence are deemed unacceptable. Laura Carroll LLC88 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2020 (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).

LLC88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If the links in the last sentence are not acceptable (except for the wiki one, please to be in accordance with wiki defs it is best to delete it. Thank you, Laura Carroll LLC88 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please do not post multiple unblock requests at once. This annoys the administrators who respond because it makes unnecessary work for us – each one of those unblock requests has to be addressed instead of a single unblock request. If your unblock request has not been replied to yet, you can simply edit to include more details. Once a message has been replied to, it is considered very bad form to edit it; this makes the response look like it took into consideration the additional comments, which was obviously not the case. So, after comments have been replied to, that's when you should make a brand new comment or unblock request.

As far as your unblock request goes, it doesn't really address your attempts to rewrite an article about which you have a conflict of interest. Although this is not strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, attempts to do so fall under considerable scrutiny. At least one of the sources that you removed in this edit seem a bit iffy to me. I've never heard of thecheckernews.com, and it sounds like it could be spam. However, you replaced a lot of good sources with citations to your own website. Wikipedians generally consider this to be promotional activity. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written according to what third party, reliable sources say, not a free webhost for organizations to use as PR. This is why you were blocked; if you address this, you will likely be unblocked. If you are only interested in trying to control the message about your own organization, you have an entire industry dedicated to helping you do this. Wikipedia is a small oasis where people can escape the advertising industry and read unbiased information contributed by people who do not have a conflict of interest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2020 (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.

LLC88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand now to not to make more than one entry at a time. I just want the last sentence edited. I have given up on the changes I initially suggested (of which did not include thecheckernews.com) as now I understand they are seen as a conflict of interest. As I understand it, the initial article is what is posted, and my request is to just either edit the last sentence so it includes valid links to other winners so it does not appear biased to one of them (who links to a wiki page), and if this is not acceptable, my request is just to delete that sentence. If this is not the place to make this request, please direct me to where to do so. I find wiki editing world to be quite the labyrinth. If this is the place to request edit, I think I understand that I must be unblocked before any edits can be requested, so as to unblock, I want to dismiss my attempts to edit the article and leave as is, as I now understand why I was blocked. Please unblock, and I will request to make the last sentence more unbiased. Thank you, Laura Carroll

Accept reason:

I hope my reasons for accepting your unblock request are explained adequately below. I do hope that you can now have a successful time as a Wikipedia editor. JBW (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LLC88 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laura. I totally sympathise with you when you say that you "find wiki editing world to be quite the labyrinth". When I started editing here I found it bewildering and confusing. I made mistakes, and did things which I later came to realise were contrary to accepted Wikipedia practices, but unlike you I was lucky enough not to do anything which led to my being blocked. Personally, I would not have immediately blocked you from editing, but would have pointed out to you Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, and explained why you should reconsider the editing you were doing, keeping a block in reserve in case you did not take notice. However, many Wikipedia administrators would have blocked you immediately, as JJMC89 did.
You appear to have more understanding of the problems now than you did immediately after the block, but to make sure, the essential point is that you were editing the article to make it reflect how you think International Childfree Day should be seen, but Wikipedia seeks to give coverage to all points of view which have significant coverage in reliable sources, and not to promote the view preferred by any particular person, including whoever originated, developed, or owns whatever is being written about.
If my understanding of your unblock request is correct, you are saying that you will no longer seek to edit the article, and that you would like to request a change to the last sentence ("Winners include Belgian writer Théophile de Giraud") so that it reflects a broader range of winners, rather than just one. That seems to me to completely satisfy the reason for the block, and I can therefore not see any reason not to unblock you. However, rather than unblock you immediately, I will wait to see whether JJMC89 wishes to make any comment. That is partly a matter of courtesy, but also because I once made the mistake of unblocking in a case which seemed to me to be perfectly clear, only to discover later that the blocking administrator knew of circumstance that I didn't know of, making my action inappropriate.
I see it is already 12 days since you were blocked, and two days since your most recent unblock request. I can imagine it must be frustrating having to keep waiting, but I hope the matter can be settled one way or the other soon. JBW (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JBW: Thank you for this response and your understanding. Your understanding of my request to unblock is correct. I definitely understand more about Wiki article editing now, and again, never intended to have the article reflect a conflict of interest. While I don't agree that some of the current references/citations are as unbiased as possible, I do not think it is worth continuing to pursue it. I do think the last sentence needs to be less biased, however, and reflect a broader range of winners. This will help it be an article that better matches Wiki's reliable and unbiased protocols. Many thanks again for your understanding! Laura Carroll 68.101.204.25 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The logged out editing here doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Beyond that, I don't have anything else to add. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JJMC89, It appears that they created this account on 11 July, and stopped editing under that IP on 10 July (except for this page). They were editing logged out before that because they didn't have an account, unless I'm missing something. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the editing on this page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they agree with you, and understand that I am truly trying to act in accordance with wiki protocol. Thanks again, Laura 68.101.204.25 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this second unblock request to a comment. Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. There was just one open as I understand it. Apologies if I am still trying to understand this system to unblock me, so I can just change one sentence of this article. 68.101.204.25 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remain confused. Where can I comment if not here? There has been just this unblock request made, and I have tried to express that I have learned the protocols of editing. Please direct me to the right place to go to continue trying to resolve this. I really do not understand why the indefinite block! Laura Carroll LLC88 (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW, JJMC89, and SQL: Would you be willing to unblock now? The user has, I think, agreed to request her changes on the talk page rather than editing the article directly, even though she has not phrased everything in quite the terms we expect. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 09:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LLC88: I am more than ready to unblock. I can only assume that the comment "Beyond that, I don't have anything else to add" from JJMC89 means that he won't object to an unblock, so I will go ahead. I can only hope that the unblocking hasn't been left for such a long time that LLC88 has given up, and will never come back. (I find that happens depressingly often with unblock requests.) JBW (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, I have agreed to request the changes to the last sentence, and if not quite right for the terms wiki expects: 1) can you briefly clarify why, as this will further my understanding of wiki protocol 2) I think as long as more than just one name is listed as a winner (which is the original author of the article, which I would think wiki would think is self-promo on his part) in this sentence it makes it more neutral and in line with wiki rules. Many thanks! Laura LLC88 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block restored

I apologise, because it appears that things were not as clearly understood as I thought, and my unblock was therefore based on a misunderstanding.

My unblocking was premised on the belief that you had agreed not to edit the article International Childfree Day again. As you can see above, I wrote, among other things, "If my understanding of your unblock request is correct, you are saying that you will no longer seek to edit the article..." to which you replied "Your understanding of my request to unblock is correct." I took that as meaning that you would not edit the article again. Emufarmers also wrote "The user has, I think, agreed to request her changes on the talk page rather than editing the article directly, even though she has not phrased everything in quite the terms we expect." Perhaps I should have held out until you did "[phrase] everything in quite the terms we expect", to make it totally unambiguous, because it seems that is not what you meant, to judge by the fact that apart from the above message on this page your first action after being unblocked was to edit the article. Perhaps also I should have given an emphatically worded summary of the relevant aspects of the conflict of interest guideline, rather than assuming that the fairly mildly worded mentions of it above, together with links to the guideline for you to follow for further detail, were enough to make sure that you were aware of the matter.

In any case, the outcome is that you were unblocked on the basis that you appeared to have agreed not to edit the article, but instead to ask for edits by other, neutral editors, but you have in fact returned to editing the article. Nor is this just a pedantic issue of an uncontroversial edit which merely technically falls against a guideline because of who made the edit; you changed the wording of a direct quote to make it say what you evidently would prefer to be said about the event that you founded, rather than what was actually said in the original quote. That kind of editing is exactly the reason that the conflict of interest guideline discourages editors in your situation from editing the articles they are connected to, and exactly the reason why you were not unblocked until you had apparently given an undertaking not to edit the article.

In view of the above considerations I am going to restore the block, and revert your unacceptable editing. If you consider requesting an unblock again, I recommend not doing so without first reading the conflict of interest guideline and the guide to appealing blocks if you have not done so already, as you are likely to find it more difficult to persuade any administrator to unblock you this time. It is likely that anything you say in order to be unblocked will be considered much more stringently than last time, since you have been seen to appear to make an undertaking which you did not keep once you had been unblocked. JBW (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

LLC88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh My Gosh! I misunderstood for sure! I thought what I did would be seen as suggestions, and that wiki could accept or not! I give. I really thought they would be taken into review - that was definitely my understanding. I request to be unblocked and will I ever NEVER try to edit anyting on wiki again. This has been veryfrustrating, as once I more clearly understood the neutrality protocol, I have tried to make this article more netural. It is equally frustrating that this article is not and wiki allows it. At my wits end, Laura Carroll LLC88 (talk) 12:25 pm, 10 August 2020, Monday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Accept-ish.

You are now unblocked from everything but International Childfree Day per JBW's reconsideration and the discussion below.  This restriction can be appeal at WP:AN at any time as well. only (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem here is just that a new editor is unaware of the existence of talk pages and how to use them. This feels like a learning curve problem, not a problem of intent. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Why don't we just downgrade this to a block on International Childfree Day only? There's no evidence they have or will disrupt any other article, and on review I don't think any of their mainspace contributions are egregiously bad. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this new editor should be held to the terms of the unblock request she has just made, where she says "I request to be unblocked and will I ever NEVER try to edit anyting on wiki again", as there'd be no point in unblocking her. She might mean "I request to be unblocked and will I ever NEVER try to edit International Childfree Day on wiki again", and hopefully she now knows that the way to suggest edits with a COI is to make well-sourced suggestions at Talk:International Childfree Day, but I'd hate to see her being held to such a comprehensive promise. PamD 15:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie333 and PamD on this and think it is very unfortunate that a newly registered female editor should have been so harshly blocked after so few edits, especially as she was trying to provide a more balanced account of an article about an organization in which she was personally involved. In the light of all her comments, perhaps other editors could now return to the article International Childfree Day and carry our any important enhancements. I see that PamD has already made a few improvements along these lines. From her user page, it looks to me as if LLC88 is still blocked. It's unfortunate none of the above is reflected on Talk:International Childfree Day.--Ipigott (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loking at it, the COI-related Welcome message discusses page creation, corporate/shared usernames, and paid editing, but doesn't say anything helpful on the lines of "If you want to suggest a correction or other improvement to an article where you have a Conflict of Interest, please use the article's Talk Page to explain what you think needs to be changed, providing detailed references to reliable independent published sources which support your proposed change. Another editor will then consider these changes and make them if appropriate, but this may not happen immediately.", which seems to be the message she never understood from the start. Perhaps we need to tweak our COI welcome message. PamD 13:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 said "I don't think any of their mainspace contributions are egregiously bad", and Ritchie333, PamD, Jpgordon and Ipigott have also expressed opinions to similar effect. I agree; in fact it is precisely because I believe Laura is a good faith editor with the potential to do good work here that I removed the original block when several other administrators had declined to do so, and it is also precisely for that reason that I put in the time and work involved in writing to her at some length explaining my thoughts on the matter, rather than just giving her a standard templated block notice. It was with great reluctance that I re-blocked when she seemed to have gone back on the terms of the unblock. However, Ritchie333 is of course absolutely right: there is no reason for keeping Laura blocked from anything other than that one article, so I have reduced the block to just a block on that article. I would have done that before if i had thought of it, and Ritchie333 I am very grateful to you for pointing that out to me.
Laura, I hope you have not been put off editing for ever by this. If so, please do feel totally welcome to suggest changes on the talk page of the article, and other editors, perhaps including those who have commented above, will consider whether to accept your suggestions.
If either Ritchie333, Jpgordon, or any other administrator would like to close the current unblock request, that will be good. If I were totally removing the block I would do it myself, but since I am not totally removing the block I think it better to leave for an independent review by someone else. JBW (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]