User talk:S0CC3RGURL20

February 2019

Hello, S0CC3RGURL20, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @HickoryOughtShirt?4:), Were the updates on the page not sufficient for the removal of the templates you added? The version of the page you keep reverting back to is not accurate and presents false information. I am trying to update it to reflect the current status of the person featured in the article.

Hi S0CC3RGURL20 and welcome to Wikipedia. Did you guys not understand what blocked indefinitely meant? It does't mean make a new account and edit again. Why are you guys failing to comply with conflict of interest policy I have linked to the original accounts page? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4:) I understand the COI policy, but the information on the page you keep publishing isn't accurate. I am a colleague who was trying to make edits to ensure there weren't promotional statements and I added more citations to keep the neutral point of view. I am unsure what else to do. You are reverting the page back to a version that is no longer accurate. There were more recent versions that weren't flagged and strangers were helping to contribute to, but those are not the version you are posting. The individual featured in the article is no longer involved per the COI policy.

Actually a lot of your edits did not add citations and in fact added more to the unsourced content. A lot of your additions were unsourced – the whole media section is unsourced, you added to personal life but didn't add sources too. You need to go to the original account and request unblocking there. New account will just be blocked again for evading policy. No one needs to edit their Wikipedia page, much less those with COIs. Thank you for telling me about those other accounts, I will try and revert to last good. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: The original account blocked belongs to the individual featured in the article. So she needs to get involved again and request to be unblocked? And then she must follow the COI policy and update the page? I want to understand the best way to do this so the page can include the correct, accurate information and all policies are followed accordingly.

Okay S0CC3RGURL20 here is the thing. Most editors here are volunteers, myself included. We are amateurs in the archaic sense of that word, people engaged in an activity "for love". There is often resentment towards paid or otherwise COI editors who are editing just to promote themselves. This is because they often write non-neutrally, displaying obvious bias toward themselves or their COI, and writing promotionally. neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. The community of Wikipedia is very strongly against COI editing. I do not see anything on the page that is against our biography of a living person policy and some of the additions yourself and colleagues want to make are clearly just for promotional purposes (eg. the media section).

I am not an administrator but sometimes if editors promise to follow our COI policy (such as using Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request) they are unblocked but watched very carefully. What does need to stop is creating multipule accounts, regardless if the original is unblocked. Myself and other editors will be glad to answer questions about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and we will review submissions but it is your job to write your submissions verifiably and neutrally. All of your submissions will need to be well sourced and neutrally written. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4:) thank you, I appreciate the thoughtful response -- I am just trying to figure out the best and appropriate way to do this. We want to make sure the information is accurate in case this is the only place someone visits, but understand this is not the place to market. One last question for now: should we completely remove the media section with the awards because it is promotional (which I understand), or if it was sourced would it be okay? Only asking because it was mentioned earlier as being unsourced, but I know everything must meet all of the different policies -- not just one or the other. Just want to understand better.

Sorry for the late reply. Just letting you know that pings only work if you add four tidals (~~) at the end. Re: media section Yes it should probably be removed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)