User talk:Nflfacts2k2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Nflfacts2k2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

Your addition to Stanford Routt has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stanford Routt shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please use article talk page Nobody Ent 03:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm unsure of how to communicate with administrators but here's my 4th try. I was told on the last discussion page to edit with my own words. Someone just keeps going back to delete it and I don't know if they are abusing the page or if there's an actual problem I just EDITED it AGAIN in MY own words that DONT violate copyrights and its been deleted. What gives? Where do I take this? I addeded in my edit link to verify data. I really need help with this- can a senior editor email me please. It's very frustrating to deal with someone basically CLEARING out stuff without reason. Copyright violation you stated and I removed it and added ORIGINAL words and sentences. Please help. And also how do I reach this particular administrator to see what exactly the ISSUE is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To Whom it may concern: I've been blocked by an administrator that claims I am sharing my Wilki account. Such is not the case. Please read the comment I made. I am the only individual that makes changes to the wilkepedia page of Stanford Routt. When I said WE, I was referring to my personal assistant (who also happens to hold a BSc in English and Sports Administration was assisting me NOT posting for me I have never given anyone access to my Wikipedia account and have been posting on the SAME account with the same computer for the past 2 years. I don't understand why I would be banned for having a hired assistant help in making sure none of the materials were copywrited- especially since I am the only one making actual only edits. My account has NEVER been shared. I am also not a HE. I am a woman who runs the publicity for the aforementioned Stanford Routt. I think this ban needs to be reexamined because it doesn't appear to be that all sides of the story are being heard. I did not violate any policy of sharing- I never have. And if you guys are to conduct a thorough investigation- you will see that everything that I have said is 100 % truth. Thanks for reading and I'll await your response.

A summary of site guidelines and policies you don't seem to be aware of[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for this account purporting to be controlled by a "team" of individuals per this comment in violation of WP:NOSHARE. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

In this post, you admit to being the person "who runs the publicity for the aforementioned Stanford Routt." This runs counter to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and will probably not help with the block. In fact, it's only going to encourage the block at this point.

Hello Nflfacts2k2. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian for your clear and concise explanation. I'm reading the links you provided now. The last edit I did- I sited news sources Wall Street Journal, ESPN, Fox and Yahoo Sports. My intent and what was written wasn't skewed or distorted and exactly as reported by verified news sources. None of what I wrote were opinions. Just facts from the sites mentioned. I also thank you for pointing out the policies and guidelines. Where do I go from here? Can I have you as an editor examine the last edits I made and approve them? I assure you, nothing was out of context or personal. All of them can be found in the links to the news sites I mentioned. Where do I go from here? Leave it alone or hope another editor can modify and include what the first moderator deleted. I felt as if he jumped the gun in banning me. I said and did nothing wrong. Never shared my account info, password or anything of the sort. It's unfair to be accused of that.

Do I also get a chance for my account to be unbanned Or is my inquiry a lost cause at this point? My job is to state facts and make sure there is accuracy in everything is transparent. I guess I will hope that other people unaffiliated will be able to add and edit as everyone else. Thank you in advance for your response.

I've already copyedited the prose you added, and restore the references you inadvertently removed. Additionally, there was some information unsupported by the links you provided. I removed that too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can get unblocked. You're going to be viewed with great suspicion, despite the lack of an official WP:Paid editing prohibition. You should only make edits to Talk:Stanford_Routt with the {{Request edit}} tag and let volunteer editors copy over the content.
For the unblock you need to clearly state you understand only a single individual can edit under a single account and that you will do so in the future. Nobody Ent 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} as it says in the block template above. Nobody Ent 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

I see there are some difficult issues here, mostly revolving around conflict of interest, and I don't envy you the task of working your way thru them. I strongly urge you to go slow here, and err on the side of caution when interpreting the practices laid out in WP:COI. However, I see from your post above that you are clear on the requirement of 1 person, 1 account, and the concern that there was a team of people operating this account was a misinterpretation. So I am lifting the block for a shared account. You should be able to edit now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. I don't think an admin who is being accused of something should be blocking the accuser. Agree with the COI issue though but not the shared account one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone! I lost hope a couple of days ago thinking I wouldn't be unblocked. The admin that blocked me really misinterpreted me and should've given me a chance to explain myself. I'm halfway through reading the rules and will most likely begin re-editing with those rules in mind. It was suggested that I edit slowly and I will do it section by section to avoid conflict as I'm sure admin will find his way to the post again. The email response I recieved from Wilki help suggested I post and have you guys make you (admins) approve before I post. Would I be able to do that HERE? If not, where would I post for pre-approval. Thanks in advance.

Post at Talk:Stanford_Routt with {{Request edit}} template (type it just like that). Another editor will review the edit and copy it over or (hopefully) explain why it's not suitable. I'd place a brief statement at User:Nflfacts2k2 that you 'run publicity for Stanford Routt' (or equivalent statement). Nobody Ent 17:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward[edit]

Hi Nflfacts2k2, I note that you recently re-added text to Stanford Routt that had previously been disputed by someone else. It was also worded in a non-neutral manner, and some of it was unsourced. Combined with your conflict of interest here, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that from here on out, you post suggestions to the article talk page (Talk:Stanford Routt, rather than edit the article yourself. At the risk of sounding too overbearing, I think the previous history here also warrants me saying that you'll likely be blocked if you don't follow this approach. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm sorry this is difficult, but editing with a conflict of interest is extraordinarily tricky. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I re-edited the last entry I included. The reason it was disputed the first go round because he (Eagles247) said information was copyrighted and had to be re-written- section by section. It has since been re-written- and that's why I reposted days later.

I'm headed to the page you suggested now- I've got links to verify the information posted. Please specify which sentence you find non neutral and I will pull the facts for all to see and approve. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nflfacts2k2 (talk • contribs)

I think the neutrality or non-neutrality of what you added is best discussed on the article talk page, but I will briefly say it wasn't really one sentence that seemed non-neutral, it was the slant of the entire paragraph. But I'm acting as an admin here, not as an editor (I don't care much about the NFL), so these types of issues should be thrashed out on the article talk page. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Please join conversation here. Id like a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th opinion in addition to eagles247. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanford_Routt#2010 Nflfacts2k2 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nflfacts2k2&oldid=1140520748"