User talk:Luis at Sistema FIRJAN

Please, use the space below if you wish to contact us.

July 2014

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Luis at Sistema FIRJAN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Luis at FIRJAN System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Adapting my Username to Wikipedia's policy. Sistema Firjan (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per Newyorkbrad's thoughts at AN. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, but do consider the following query:

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) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel.

Regarding your questions, I believe it is possible to answer all of them saying that I am aware of the Wikipedia's pillars. In fact, I have gone through this subject matter (NPV, notable themes, COI, etc.) in the process of editing the articles in Portuguese that are already published in the PT WP. Those that I am editing in English are only a translated version of them. The choice to use the name of the company I work for as my Username is intentional, a way of expressing my good will through transparency.

Best regards, Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daniel Case.

Any good news about the process of unblocking my new Username?

All the best, Sistema Firjan (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to consult with the blocking admin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't impressed. He suspects there are differences between the conflict of interest policies here and on ptwiki that you don't appreciate. Can you perhaps read the simpler version of the COI policy and tell me what effect it will have on your stated editorial intentions? Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel Case. I will go through this text you recommended and will get back to you tomorrow with my considerations. All the best, Sistema Firjan (talk).

Hello, Daniel Case.

I have carefully read the page you suggested and believe I can say that the present account respects WP´s rules.

Regarding the disclosure obligation, which applies to me as a paid contributor, the rule says:

"Misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use"
"You must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive"

As every user can read, there is a statement in my Userpage disclosuring who I am.

With regard to disruption...

"COI editors causing disruption may be blocked."

...it obviously do not apply to me, hence, should not have been blocked. My case is as follows:

"Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously."
"They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages(...)" - we do that - "(...)and to request the views of other editors" - we have welcomed all the suggestions from WP editors to improve our articles and we have counted on the help of OTAVIO1981 in order to adapt our articles to the strict Wikipedia's standards.

Reading the topic "Escape, disclosure or management", about the ways a person with a conflict of interest might approach it, puts my account into the 2nd case (wich I think is consistent with the democratic age in which we live):

"it can be disclosed to anyone who relies on P's judgment, so that they can decide whether to remove P, or seek a second opinion wherever P has exercised her judgment".

In fact, I have faced what you call controversial edit. Nevertheless, I have been acting as recommended by WP policies (ie, debating in a civilized manner on the talk page):

"If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page."

I can say the only rule I have broken here (for not being aware of it) was using the name of the organization as the account. But I hope that problem will soon be solved with my Username changing to "Luis at FIRJAN System", as recommended.

Finally, I hope that the above confirms that my "editing intentions" and WP behaviour are the same I have adopted in the PT WP: transparency, good will and reliable information on a variety of themes, with lots of references.

Best, Sistema Firjan (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sorry about not getting back to you over the weekend—it was, after all, the weekend.

Given my discussion with Alex about your edits at ptwiki I'm not comfortable resolving this without some input from other admins. So I will be putting it up at AN for discussion, referring people here. Hopefully that should get us some consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Daniel Case. I think it is positive to discuss it over with other admins. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that I am currently unable to take part in the discussions (except here) once my account is blocked. And if it sounds better to you, I can propose another Username, without the name of my company. I just want to keep editing. Best, --Sistema Firjan (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked people to take the discussion here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! --Sistema Firjan (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alexf, Daniel Case, The Banner, Gene93k, Victor Lopes and editors in general: I would like very much to know your toughts about how to improve both articles nomitaded for deletion below. Many thanks, Bernardo. --Sistema Firjan (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fair start will be to cut out 95% of the information (leaving the lead or less) and add independent reliable sources for that. No need for programs, operations, mobile units etc. Cut everything out what is not about the organisation itself en source that properly. The Banner talk 16:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one other admin really responded to this, but since he is a) a respected member of the ArbCom and b) someone I have met in person many times, I have taken his advice and unblocked so you may at least participate in the AfDs. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel Case. Would you please let me know what I need to do in order to use the new username without loosing the edits that have already been done by the previous one? And should I keep on refraining from editing here and just take part in the discussions or am I free to go on?

Go to WP:CHU/SIMPLE and follow the directions there. I would wait till the change goes through; maybe leave a note at the AfD that a username change is pending and that anyone there with concerns can go to your talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have already made the request there, Daniel Case. Cheers, Bernardo. --Sistema Firjan (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments above, The Banner, are you serious? I am asking that because it does not seem to be a reasonable suggestion. And here is why I think so:

“to cut out 95% of the information”: this request, per se, surprises me. Aren´t we trying to encourage people to edit in Wikipedia? The articles in question here, on my opinion, are well written and consistent with who the organizations are;
“add independent reliable sources”: the article “Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro” contains 18 reliable sources, being 6 of them related to the organization. Hence, there are 12 independent sources, most of them from well-known media vehicles in Brazil (such as G1, Globonews, Monitor Mercantil, Último Instante and O Dia newspaper). Not to mention that part of the institutional sources are needed in order to tell the story of the company, which is not something one can easily find in news sources. The other article, “Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro” has 30 reliable sources (25 of them non-institutional). So, only 22,9% of the sources of both articles are not independent (11 in 48). And they are mostly used to cover the historical part;
“no need for programs, operations, mobile units etc.”: programs, operations and mobile units represent who we are, what we do. How would it be possible to portray a company without stating what it does? It is not possible! And other organizations adopt that approach in their articles within the English WP, such as the below:
1. Microsoft: “As of 2013, Microsoft is market dominant in both the IBM PC-compatible operating system and office software suite markets (the latter withMicrosoft Office). The company also produces a wide range of other software for desktops and servers, and is active in areas includingInternet search (with Bing), the video game industry (with the Xbox, Xbox 360 and Xbox One consoles), the digital services market (throughMSN), and mobile phones (via the Windows Phone OS). In June 2012, Microsoft entered the personal computer production market for the first time, with the launch of the Microsoft Surface, a line of tablet computers.” First of all, there is no reference for this whole paragraph. Besides, it is totally about products and brands. So, are products and brands more important than programs, operations and mobile units? And it also features “Windows division”, “business division”, “devices division”, “corporate affairs” and “marketing”. Hummm…
2. Apple inc.: again, I read an entire paragraph with products and brands and no reference at all (“is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and personal computers. Its best-known hardware products are the Mac line of computers, the iPod media player, the iPhone smartphone, and the iPad tablet computer. Its online services include iCloud, iTunes Store, and App Store. Its consumer software includes the OS X and iOS operating systems, the iTunes media browser, the Safari web browser, and theiLife and iWork creativity and productivity suites.”). And it also has a section about "Products" and another one about "Corporate Affairs" (which includes “charitable causes”). Hummm…
3. McDonald´s: the first thing that caught my attention was that this company has a sub-section called “Global operations”, while we are being forbidden to address such a topic. And also cites “charity”. Hummm…
4. British American Tobacco: look, the BAT article also has a topic called “Operations”! And brand promotion in the sub-section “Sponsorships”. Hummm…
5. KFC: can´t believe it. Another one with sections such as “Operations”, “Products” and “Advertising”. Hummm…
6. Just to number a few examples. And worst: they were the first companies I thought about. And they ALL have the same problems you are complaining about. There must be hundreds of examples like those, at least. I was wondering if this difficulty our company is facing in this virtual space with regards to editing is due to a possible lack of interest of editors in subjects about the Brazilian organizations. So, I made a quick research and found out that, as a matter of fact, we are there:
  1. Vale (mining company): it also adresses its business (“Mining business”) and operations (“Logistics”) – railroads, ports, container terminals and ships;
  2. Petrobras: the same here, with business (domestic sales, export, foreign exchange) and operations (oil reserves, field discoveries, global operations. Most of this based on approximately 30 institutional sources!
“cut everything out what is not about the organization itself”: all that is in these articles are strictly about the organization.

Hope you think it over and may reconsider your point of view, which seems to be unfair in face of the above mentioned.

Best regards, Bernardo--Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am dead serious. For instance, every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. But with your reply you make clear that you are here to promote those companies, not to write a neutral, describing article. The Banner talk 19:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but besides being unfair, you now are wrong: my reply makes clear that I am trying to understand this WP way of thinking in order to adapt to it, and that the evaluation methods to which I am subjected here are pretty much subjective. And that is ok, we are only humans. But make no mistake: to write about a company is not the same as promoting it. As we are a community when it comes to Wikipedia, I will wait for other editors' opinion and accept what the majority of them decide. Best regards, Bernardo. Sistema Firjan (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that Sistema Firjan has indeed shown a considerable interest in learning more about how to abide to our guidelines, both here and at the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he is facing similar issues. As I already stated in one of the AfD discussions, all the articles need is some major cleanups, leaving probably more than 5%, but still deleting more than half. I am owing him some edits in one of his Portuguese Wikipedia creations, so he can see what kind of material is not considered adequate for our standards. I plan to do it soon. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Decision: Rio Investments for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Decision: Rio Investments is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decision: Rio Investments until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mr. Guye (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industrial Center of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industrial Center of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial Center of Rio de Janeiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of National Industrial Training Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Industrial Training Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Industrial Training Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Euvaldo Lodi Institute of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Euvaldo Lodi Institute of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euvaldo Lodi Institute of Rio de Janeiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

para as Olimpíadas de 2016|accessdate=1 July 2014|date=9 April 2012|website=A Voz da Cidade}}</ref>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Decision: Rio Investments

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Decision: Rio Investments, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2602:306:36D5:5690:C06F:5F56:A477:8F38 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your article FIRJAN System

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page FIRJAN System to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, some of the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. AviationFreak💬 21:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The Banner talk 08:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The Banner talk 08:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]