User talk:GAPwhistleblowers
|
June 2009
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Government Accountability Project has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/pages/government-accountability-project/107237007602, http://www.facebook.com/pages/whistleblower/105517812520).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why can't I edit Wikipedia?
Because Wikipedia does not allow any form of spam or other promotion of people, products, companies or other groups (even non-commercial or charitable ones). Wikipedia's use for such purposes will result in the blocking of the account involved. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for our rules about this.
In addition, user accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing. Your username should reflect this. Usernames that appear to be promotional (such as those that make reference to a company or product) violate our username policy and are grounds for blocking.
- What can I do now?
If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than yourself, your group, company or product, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
If you do intend to make contributions 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|Your reason here}}below this message box. - Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Tell us what new username you want to use. Please make sure that your new username does not violate our username policy and check that it has not already been taken here.
- 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.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message box and replace the text "Your reason here" with the reason why. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC){{Unblock on hold|1=Cirt|2=Dear Wikipedia: Thank you for your tremendous and resourceful site. I utilize it often, but have just recently started editing pages. I write this because I have been blocked from contributing any more edits, as I have been accused of posting edits that are "mainly intended or used for promotional purposes." My great apologies if it did appear that way - it was not my intention. My changes thus far (that were controversial) were to the "whistleblower" entry on Wikipedia. Which is, btw, the lead google hit on "whistleblower." I believe it is essential, and only respectful, to the whistleblower community, that this page represent the most up-to-date and correct information as possible. This is what I attempted to change. Without detailing all of my proposed changed, let me highlight a few. My first edit was to the third paragraph - "One famous whistleblower...." which proceeds to highlight Jeffrey Wigand, Frederic Whitehurst, and Paul van Buitenen. All fine gentlemen and whistleblowers I'm sure, but having followed whistleblower issues for some time now, I'm not really familiar with either of the latter two, and feel there are better-known whistleblowers to list her (if the entry does at all. I attempted to highlight FDA scientists David Graham (who exposed the Vioxx had killed at least 40,000 Americans), who blew the whistle in 2004, and Rick Piltz (who exposed the White House's editing of climate science reports) who blew the whistle in 2005. If in your view, it was incorrect to list these gentleman, or the group that represented them, I apologize. Please note, for future reference and posts, I will not overly-feature certain groups, if allowed to edit again. My thought on this paragraph, however, is - since we already have a "List of whistleblowers" on Wikipedia, why not simply not include any whistleblowers in description here, but simply link to that? Next, under "Common Reactions to Whistleblowing," there is a entire paragraph about private organizations responses' (favorable) to whistleblowers, in terms of programs being set up to help them. But a large part of the histroy of whistleblowers in America, revolves around the public interest groups that came out inn the 1970s to help whistleblowers as well. These groups have been responsible for the great majority of whistleblower rights legislation to be passed over the last 30 years. So I'm unclear why this would be considered biased or overly-highlighting of groups, considering that a U.K. Group is more than highlighted in this paragraph. Furthermore, a novel about whistleblowing is obvious being highlighted here! Next, I was simply trying to update Whistleblower laws and legislation news, as federal employees are set to receive tremendous upgrades (for the first time in 15 years) in the next few weeks. Lastly, I was hoping to change the "Whistleblower Week in Washington" paragraph because that text is grossly out of date. There have been two national meetings since that time. Please let me know about anything else I can do to regain editing capabilities. This issue is important to me. I will tone down any references to groups in particular (or name all associated with an event), if that was the trouble. I thank you for your time and consideration.|3=–Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)}}
Hi. If unblocked, would you agree to change your username to something that doesn't appear promotional? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm removing the on hold template for now. Once you have responded, please place a new unblock request up. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|I am happy to change my name. I am sorry that it appears promotional, it was not my intention.
Might I suggest hbdb?
Thank you.}}
