User talk:LogosVonMilo

Welcome[edit]

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, TWFHCOM, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Ipatrol (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:RachelReneeRussell.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:RachelReneeRussell.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut 'n paste[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Kevin Saunders a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. mabdul 21:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Extended content

Your account has been blocked indefinitely, as it appears to be a "role account" for http://www.twfh.com. Accounts must be operated by individuals, not on behalf of companies. Furthermore, it seems you are also using User:TWFH to edit, which is a violation of our policy on the use of multiple accounts. Finally, advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia. As it seems the primary purpose of your company is advertising or paid editing, this presents a severe conflict of interest with regard to Wikipedia's policies and goals. You may appeal this block by posting the template {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message, replacing "your reason here" with your reasons why you should be unblocked. You may wish to read this guide first before appealing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:09, 29 November 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unaware of sock puppetry rule and created TWFH account because I could not locate password. I have located TWFHCOM password and will discontinue use of TWFH. TWFHCOM is only used by one person and not several people within a company, so the "role account" is not true. I do work for a company with a similar name, but we do not advertise on Wikipedia and I am well aware of that rule. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Both TWFH and TWFHCOM appear to be related to an organization, contrary to the username policy, and thus cannot be unblocked for editing. If you wish to be unblocked in order to change your username, use {{unblock-spamun|proposed name}} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 29 November 2011 (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 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.

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

Requested username:

JSMilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I was told that previous username is associated with website.

Decline reason:

Given your history of creating spam articles and use of your employer as a user name, I don't think that you're really here to write encyclopedia articles. Google says that the http://www.twfh.com website is infected with Malware by the way. Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't create spam articles. I'm always careful to cite my sources and write neutrally. If I'm doing something incorrect in my article creation, I would greatly appreciate guidance to make them better. And like I stated before, I'm more than happy to change my username. I was unaware that the current username was violating policy.

Decline reason:

I took a look at your most recent deleted edits to Kaseya, and they clearly did not reflect a neutral encyclopedic tone. I agree with Nick-D above me, and would suggest that if you would like to be unblocked, you will not only have to change your username; you will also have to convince us that you will not attempt to write about subjects which you are affiliated with. Your past editing history doesn't give me great confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not really sure how to convince you, but here's my proposal: Move the Kaseya article to my User talk page and let me rewrite it. You may review and critique, then decide if I should be unblocked and if the article is improved enough to post on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Conflict of interest looks severe enough. I feel that unblocking you will result in people having to watch you closely, at the very least, and that they can spend their precious time on improving Wikipedia instead. Max Semenik (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request that the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest guidelines be reviewed again. The page says "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously." I do not believe that I've caused disruption, and if anything I've done is considered disruptive then I ask you to point it out so that I can improve my editing. Further, I follow policies and best practices to the best of my knowledge, although I'm still learning. The COI page also contains this line: "Professional public relations firms are required to abide by the PRSA code of ethics." I do abide by the code of ethics. If editing for money isn't allowed, why is this line in there? When a client comes to me for help with Wikipedia, I always tell them that articles need to be cited and neutral. I never take out negative information added about them by someone else, or remove any other cited information that is useful to the page.

Decline reason:

No matter how much wikilawyering you do, and how much you quote your own selection of bits of guidelines out of context, the fact remains that it is perfectly clear that your only purpose here is to edit to promote the interests of your "clients". Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (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.

How do you choose the subjects that you write about? Are you being employed as a public relations person, for example, or editing on behalf of people who ask you to help them improve their companies' presence on Wikipedia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FisherQueen, I am employed to post neutral articles for clients. I understand that people with potential COIs Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest must be particularly careful about staying neutral in their edits. It is not my intention to hinder Wiki's mission to be a neutral reference, but to provide quality content to Wiki about subjects that may not have adequate coverage. I have worked hard to ensure that all of my work is carefully cited, and that I only include information that is completely unbiased. If I have posted an article -- or any part of an article -- that does not meet Wiki guidelines, I would very much appreciate any advice you can give me regarding how to avoid such an action in the future. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated.TWFHCOM (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:COI, and it seems to say that users are strongly discouraged from ever editing in subjects where they have a financial interest. You seem to be saying that you don't have any plans to ever make any other kind of edit. I'm hesitant to unblock you, but I'm going to leave your request open, because I remember there was some controversy a few years ago about editing-for-money, and I can't remember what the consensus on the subject was- I'm hoping that some other reviewing admin will. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that at least one such user was blocked from editing by Jimbo Wales himself. (I would recommend you to contact the Arbitration Committee for further instructions.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand your concern, but I feel that it is unfounded. If you review my articles, I believe that you’ll see that I have only posted quality, neutral material that is notable and very carefully cited.

I feel that continuing to block my account after I have followed the guidelines and announced my intentions promotes dishonesty. If Wiki intends to ban everyone who declares their conflict, then I feel that it will encourage people to lie or try to cheat the system. I am doing everything that I can to follow all of the guidelines, and yet I feel that I am being penalized because of it.

In addition, Wiki’s own guidelines do not ban people with conflicts of interest from editing Wiki. This page warns me to be careful and follow the guidelines; it even includes a reference to PR firms: "Professional public relations firms are required to abide by the PRSA code of ethics." If Wiki feel it is in its best interest to ban editors with a conflict, then I feel that the guidelines should be rewritten to state that. However, these guidelines clearly state that PR firms CAN edit Wiki. If a PR firm can edit Wiki, why would I be blocked?

Decline reason:

After a considerable time, no administrator was ready to unblock you. Furthermore, several of them left opposing comments. Max Semenik (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2012 (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.

One key bit that you've overlooked is the blocking policy. In particular, administrators are not required to unblock you until they are satisfied that you will edit within policy. Your previous edits (seen as non-neutral by some), your use of multiple accounts, and the username itself are all factors that give pause. Your responses here have not convinced admins that you will edit within policy if unblocked. Clearly you have some idea of what you plan to edit when unblocked. So let's have it - post a proposed revision or set of revisions to a particular article, showing how you'd edit that article neutrally if you were able. Your promises have so far been unconvincing - perhaps actually showcasing your edits would work better. Either way, don't take this all personally - we have lots and lots of editors who break the rules through a lack of knowledge rather than through malice, and blocking is simply how we prevent them from causing harm. Many users, once they learn how, are unblocked and edit productively. The very dishonestly we see from many editors and vandals is precisely why admins are hesitant to unblock. Showing them that your edits are sound is a great first step around that. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate this advice. How do I go about posting a revision when I'm blocked? Can I do it on my user page? Any particular article I should use? Also, if editors could point out what they thought was not neutral about my other articles, that would help a lot. Is it because I used company websites as a source? I thought that was ok as long as I used other sources as well. Thanks for any help. TWFHCOM (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't support an unblock. I am having trouble seeing the difference between 'being paid by a company to write about that company in a way that company hopes will positively influence readers' and 'advertising,' no matter how it's phrased. When company buys a billboard that simply says, "McDonalds next exit," the fact that it is factually true doesn't make it not advertising. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that one is a motivation, the other is a result. A person can be paid to edit an article and yet write good prose that follows our guidelines and policies, we don't usually block people until they actually start to break our policies and guidelines. We don't have any rule against paid editing, people have made attempts to do so, see Wikipedia:Paid editing, but all proposed guidelines and policies have failed. There is one active proposal that has been stalled for months. The community just doesn't seem to consider it as big of a deal as Jimbo does.

Having said that, I hesitate to unblock in this particular case. due to what has actually been advertising at the now-deleted Kaseya article. -- Atama頭 00:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

User:TWFHCOM has contacted the Arbitration Committee by email to appeal the block. After review, it has been decided to unblock on three conditions:

That User:TWFHCOM only edits from one account
That User:TWFHCOM changes their username; making the change request as soon as possible, and making no other edits to Wikipedia other than to make the name change request or to their own talkpage until the name has been changed
That User:TWFHCOM takes responsibility for ensuring that their edits are neutral, non-promotional, and comply with Wikipedia guidelines.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting the name change done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:DorkDiariesBook2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DorkDiariesBook2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship[edit]

Hi Logos. You may want to consider requesting a mentor on Wikiproject Cooperation, who can show you the ropes on ethical best practices like disclosure and request edits as well as work with you on repairing any NPOV complaints on prior articles and improving future ones. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:DorkDiariesBook1.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:DorkDiariesBook1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dorklogo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dorklogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:DorkDiariesBook2.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DorkDiariesBook2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:DorkDiariesBook3.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DorkDiariesBook3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nikki Maxwell Dork Diaries.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nikki Maxwell Dork Diaries.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]