User talk:Torlib

Welcome!

Hello, Torlib, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! — billinghurst sDrewth 03:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Username policy

Hi. I just wish to point you to the above link and alert you to the restriction of user accounts being personal, not organisational. Looking at the edits and the urls added, you probably should acquaint yourself with WP:COI — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Billinghurst. I got your message about a potential COI, which I thought would be covered under the GLAM exception, since I work for a public library that digitises rare materials that support and expand Wikipedia article, particularly in the domain of Canadian history.

Shortcut

WP:CURATOR

I was not aware that I was doing anything wrong! If there is a particular item you find problematic, please let me know. I am just starting to contribute to this project, so your feedback is very valuable to me.

As a result of your recommendation, I did expand my About page.

Thanks, Billinghurst, and have a good 2014. Torlib (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. 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, website 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, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for 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, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about 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, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cindy(talk) 23:06, 22 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

All of my recent edits conform to the GLAM exception, since I work for a public library that digitises rare materials that support and expand Wikipedia articles, particularly in the domain of Canadian history. While my IP address is the same as the 600 or so blocked public-access terminals offered by Toronto Public Library, I make my edits — which DO add value, I believe — under this user. I do not understand why I have been blocked.

Decline reason:

We don't permit single-purpose link-canvassing accounts, regardless of the quality of the link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 28 March 2014 (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.

Non-admin comment: I recommend changing your username, if only slightly, to avoid confusing other editors. Perhaps "TorLibStaffer since 2010" or "AGuy at TorLib" or some such. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment on the "GLAM exception" mentioned here. Please understand that there is no such exemption to the username policy. I would recommend reviewing the information at the link you've provided at Wikipedia:Advice for the cultural sector. The information actually states that the user account should be the editor's alone (not shared) and should not be named after their institution. There's also an interesting conversation on the talk page there about shared accounts for GLAM participants. Cindy(talk) 10:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cindamuse: I'm afraid I don't understand. Is the objection my **username** (which was created by someone else and transferred to me, who is as far as I know the only one who uses it) or **that my links do not add value**? I can make a new username, if that would resolve the issue. If the issue is quality, I really do think that the content I add is valuable to people researching a topic. I link the book the author wrote to the article about the author, if it was not already there. I add a map of the events discussed in an historical article, or maybe an image depicting the event. Yes, they are from the institution I work for but they are valuable, one-of-a-kind, primary history resources. If I were writing a paper or an article on the topic(s), these resources would add value and most people would not be able to locate them on their own — I know they are there and that people would look for them if they knew it existed. The public library digitises this content to be used, it does not derive any profit in any way from doing this — we just want to put the public domain material we create into the hands of users. I will stop if you want, but I submit that my work has value. I spend a lot of time trying to find appropriate resources from the 20,000 items we have digitised to date (most of them entire books never before digitised, and valuable to the field of Canadian history. Thank you for your assistance. Torlib (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were there multiple users of this account?

In this edit in a discussion above this one, you said

which was created by someone else and transferred to me, who is as far as I know the only one who uses it.

It is against Wikipedia's policies to have "shared" accounts.

To set the record straight

Has anyone other than you ever made an edit other than meaningless test edits to sandbox or to pages whose names start with User:Torlib or User talk:Torlib using this account, including edits that have been reverted or deleted? Special:Contributions/Torlib shows your non-deleted edits, if that helps you remember.
Has anyone other than you used any facility of the account which isn't "private" to you? For example, setting user preferences would be "private to you," sending an email to another editor would not. Test emails to other editors who knew it wasn't you (such as the person who set up this account sending a test email to his main account) don't count against you here.
Are there any edits made by others under this account, including deleted edits, which you do not want to accept personal responsibility for?
Has anyone other than you logged into this account since the first time you logged in other than for testing purposes?

If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then it's better to just say so here then create a new account, as this is the kind of issue that cannot be "fixed" by renaming the account. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have the ability to "split" an account into a "account before date X"/"account after date X".

In any case, from this point forward nobody but you should use this account. If anyone else knows the password, you should change it and not share it. Do this even if your account remains blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all edits since 2010, but the 2009 ones were not mine. I have changed my password, but it looks like my contributions are not welcome, so I will no longer be making them. Thanks for your help, David. Torlib (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]