User talk:TechEditor

TechEditor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TechEditor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please

read WP:PAID and WP:COI. And then follow them religiously. There is no article ownership on Wikipedia. If independent editors consider that the documented fact that a company was bought out of bankruptcy for 2 million GBP is important, then that's what the article will likely say for the foreseeable future. You can see why people might think that, right? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ve_Interactive. You really do need to follow the rules here. If you have any questions on how the rules apply to you - you can ask there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Ve Interactive.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Finngall ^talk 23:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Ve Interactive while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. SmartSE (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

The contributor 'Smartse' has spent weeks giving an unfair, unbalanced and bias view as to what Ve is as a business. Instead of reflecting on the company's seven year history, the contributor has only focused on the past four months. Not only that, but the last edits have not taken into account the new offices, location, web address and other key details necessary to give an up-to-date narrative as to where the business is now. Granted, elements like 'award-winning' are a step to far and I will revert from those types of contributions in future. But to not focus on the company's entire seven year history or the recent changes in address, etc, is not a fair reflection. TechEditor (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2017 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:41, 14 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

To address my block in reference to 'advertising', I agree to reframe from using language that may promote the company in a bias way. I will follow the Wikipedia entry guides and only contribute narrative that is balanced. TechEditor (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is insufficient. What other things will you do to avoid violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Hint: the answer is in either WP:COI or WP:PAID, both of which you've violated. Yamla (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

To ensure I am not perceived as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and to ensure there isn't a conflict of interest which results in a loss of public confidence in the article, I will openly discuss what changes I intend on making via my talk pages instead. After receiving feedback and making any necessary amends, I will then incorporate the changes into the page. I will also discuss any issues I have with potential changes made by other contributors in an open and transparent manner. To clarify, I am not a paid editor. TechEditor (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reply to the request for clarification below. Given the content of your past edits, I'd also be reluctant to have you implement your proposed changes. Huon (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2017 (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.

The reason I blocked you is that you have repeatedly introduced unsourced promotional material into the article and have failed to respond to the COI issues by making a disclosure. It is patently obvious that you have a COI so please disclose that this is the case as is required. And I have not been "giving an unfair, unbalanced and bias view as to what Ve is as a business" - I have merely maintained the article in an (relatively) unpromotional form. Do you understand why it is not ok to include "Ve's award-winning products help e-commerce clients get more from their websites by enabling online businesses to acquire, engage and convert new and existing customers." in an encyclopedia? SmartSE (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

To clarify, yes, I will avoid mentioning 'award-winning products' in future. Yes, I have a COI and will follow the approach I have put forward in my unblock request. However, the changes that have been made do not reflect the new office, location, and other vital details. These need to be included. Again, I have set out how I will make amends going forward so please do let me know if this is agreeable.

Decline reason:

There is already an active unblock request on this page. Closing this one as only one is required. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:14, 16 June 2017 (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.

No update on this as yet?

You say that you have a conflict of interest but that you are not a paid editor, which presumably means that editing Wikipedia is not all or part of work for which you receive payment. Can you specify the nature of your unpaid conflict of interest? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]