User talk:Entwinedsocialmedia

March 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Entwinedsocialmedia", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is the name of an organization. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: This seems to be a borderline case, but I'm inclined to believe that, barring the first part of the string "Entwinedsocial" represents any real life organization, this would probably be an acceptable username under current policy. It would be similar to if I had registered an account named "Facebooklover". TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to change the name, and will do so as you feel it is not applicable, minor error that is easily changed. Thanks for voicing your concerns. Thanks

Welcome!

Hello, Entwinedsocialmedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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! NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to edit my name which i have already requested yesterday to do but nothing has happened about it. So again i wish to edit my name as i wish to edit more than one page!

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

shardwick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

so i can edit pages as i wish to, to be unblocked

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, did not answer the questions. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That name's OK, but do consider this::

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Tozzi

If you want to change the images for Cheyenne Tozzi, who you supposedly represent, you must agree to license any images under your copyright protection to Wikipedia's Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GNU Free Documentation license. Please read those legal copyright licenses carefully and what they entail; if you choose to contribute to Wikipedia, bear in mind your contributions may be used for any purpose, including commercial use. That means any competitor that you might have are free to use your images, with the only requirement they credit you for the work. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who i do represent! How do i file an application to state that i represent this person and want to be able to control what is written on the wikipedia page. There was previous information on her page that was incorrect (untrue) and the image does not represent her current working status.

You cannot "control" what is in the article. In fact, due to your conflict of interest, you should not be even editing the article. Did you read the guidelines I posted above? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So its ok for Cheyenne to come on and edit it herself? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for a competitor to come on and write what ever they wish? I have the right to edit the page and i will keep it completely by the rules and regs and keep it completely factual. Now where do i go to upload an image to her page, an image that i can obtain copyrights to so it stays within the guidelines.

Here. As you may have noticed, the article has been cut down, with the improperly sourced content removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful will look into it. thanks

Identifying incorrect sources?

Whats classified as an incorrect source.

found it!

In this case, companies devoted to promoting the subject cannot be used as sources for statements like these:

"...where she has been the favourite of client such as ACP’s ‘30 Days Of Fashion’"
"At the age of 13, Cheyenne became one of the youngest models to grace the cover of prestigious ‘Harper’s Bazaar’, and was immediately dubbed ‘the next Elle Macpherson"

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What so the information is correct

"...where she has been the favourite of client such as ACP’s ‘30 Days Of Fashion’"
"At the age of 13, Cheyenne became one of the youngest models to grace the cover of prestigious ‘Harper’s Bazaar’, and was immediately dubbed ‘the next Elle Macpherson"

Just need a new source? Done

An independent source like a magazine or newspaper. Not a TV show hyping one of their stars. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So your telling me the like of The Daily Telegraph newspaper, and gossip magazines are reportable sources??? Now thats a bit ridiculous. they make money of selling lies

Nope. Do you not have any reputable newspapers and celebrity magazines in Australia? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of which have articles relevant to this model. Further the ones you are trying to get us to reference post about a celebrity here say not truth. If most celebs were to look at there Wiki page im sure they would be completely upset with the sources used and the crap that people just freely add from sourcing crap newspapers and mags! A TV show on Fox cannot publish lies about a persons job description and talent!

Further i note you have removed the part about her dating the surfer Burrows. Thats interesting as it was sourced by a an article following your guidelines yet you removed it. I would like to add that i did not add that article it was there for years... so how did that slide the system? As the actually story was incorrect!

hahahaha i love how you state by [whom] next to one part and i get to reference the daily mail.... the daily mail is an ok source to reference amazing!

Actually it's not - I've removed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

right so you find the correct source and let me know!! How on earth can you reference something if you cannot use any reference on the internet. Explain that one to me. Vogue pretty reputable source wouldn't you say!

Yes, Vogue is fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to finish todays discussion by saying i have written evidence that other people have been able to edit and clean up there Wiki page by contacting Wiki stating they are working with the person to write the truth. I know there was one case where legal action was going to be taken by a person/celeb as Wiki continued to let people post lies that potentially could ruin ones life (deformation). Im more than happy to abide by the rules and nothing i am writing is lies or not printed in multiple areas. Not one of the referenced articles has paid me or send me information to write and i do not gain anything out of referencing them! Further i am not being paid by Cheyenne or her management, so editing this article doesnt get me monetary gain!!!! The only gain is that the truth is posted online about someone of celeb status who is aware that LIES are posted on this page and have requested they be removed and TRUTH posted! Now go enjoy your weekend as i certainly am!

If you spot any major defamation or libel please contact the Wikipedia:Oversight team at Special:EmailUser/Oversight and remember to keep everything confidential. As to articles, Wikipedia strives to be first and foremost an encyclopedia, and that includes backing everything up with reliable third-party independent sources. Wikipedia's measure as encyclopedia is verifiability, i.e. what has been reported in reliable journals or described to have existed, not what the truth is. Wikipedia is reliable in that sense, not because it creates or finds truth, but reports what has already always existed. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So im blocked for editing a page?