User talk:MissBackstage

July 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at James McAvoy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at James McAvoy, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Hello MissBackstage. You recently stated that you represent a website called Miss Backstage [1]. Be advised that your username violates Wikipedia's username policy, as usernames can never represent a website, business or organization. Usernames can only ever represent a single individual, and accounts can never be shared by more than one person. Please request a change of username or your account will almost certainly be blocked from editing on these grounds.

I would also advise you to read Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You should never edit Wikipedia articles with the intention to promote or drive traffic to your website. Thank you. --Drm310 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

I desire to restore my profile changing my username, according to wikipedia rules. I was already in contact with one admin when another one decided to block me, which makes no sense since I didn't edit anything new while I was in contact with the first admin.

Decline reason:

One request at a time, please. Max Semenik (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to this block than your username: you appear to be promoting yourself, your videos, or somesuch - that's not acceptable, and YOU are not a reliable source the panda ₯’ 23:55, 24 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I made ONE mistake, I apologised to the admin who undid my very FIRST content added to wikipedia, I justified what happened, and I won't ever repeat the same mistake again. So I just would like to know if wikipedia is this radical to block FOREVER a user for ONE mistake. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, your account of what happened differs considerably from what I see. You did not make one "mistake": you repeatedly added essentially the same content designed to promote your own company and your YouTube video; even after another editor had put considerable effort and time into several messages explaining to you why what you did was unacceptable, you added a similar promotional link to a talk page under the guise of asking for opinions; even after posting this unblock request, in which you say you won't do the same again, you have posted a message below in which you make it clear that you have not taken the message on board, and that you still take the same view as before on your promotional edits. No, Wikipedia doesn't block an editor for ever for one mistake, but it does block an editor who makes it clear that his/her only intention is to persist in plugging away at some kind of editing that is contrary to consensus, unless and until he or she makes it apparent that he or she has dropped it, and is likely to move on to different, and more constructive editing. (Also, although it is not directly part of the reason for declining your unblock request, I will mention that it does not help to keep going on about other trivia existing in articles. Loads of crap exists in many Wikipedia articles, but the existence of one piece of crap does not justify the existence of another, nor does an editor removing a piece of crap mean that he or she has read every word of everything on Wikipedia, and has concluded that everything else is perfectly good. It is therefore totally fallacious to think that anything else you can find must have somehow got approval from those who have reverted your edits.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:44, 12 August 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.

Admins will block anyone whose apparent sole purpose for editing Wikipedia is to promote something, and while I do agree is it quite aggressive, consider that Wikipedia's Alexa rank is within the top ten and search engines show preferential treatment to us, so admins have to be aggressive with regards to such blocks, otherwise Wikipedia just becomes another PR weapon. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MissBackstage, so now you know that you can't edit in areas where you have a conflict of interest - what are you intending to do if unblocked? Max Semenik (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max, I intend to request a change of username, after I'm unblocked, then, very very carefully, I want to ASK admins on HOW to add content with my new username, according to wikipedia rules. From the very first mistake I came to Bbb23 to ask on how to do it, and he was very patient telling me how to do it, and out of NOWHERE I was blocked, long before I could even edit anything at all a second time. I intend to have the APPROVAL of my add before adding anything here. MissBackstage (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what content you intend to add? I'm not averse to unblocking you, but if you just want to figure out how to add links to your Youtube page or website without having them deleted, then you're flat out barking up the wrong tree - there'd be no point in unblocking you, because as soon as you added those links again the block would go straight back into effect. If you can give me some idea of the sort of edits you intend to make (you don't have to give examples, just a rough idea will do) then I'd be willing to lift the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before Yunshui, I won't add absolutely anything until some admin tell me my edit idea is according to the rules. Everything I ever consider adding to any page here, I'll contact some moderator or admin first to make sure is according to Wikipedia rules. It was what I was doing after my very first undone edit here. I contacted Bbb23 and asked him how I should do it. Every single information in this website came from some media, yet nobody is blocking the other sources from posting their content under ordinary usernames right? Why my media source is forbidden as source considering it's legit (video proof) like any Reuters content? The real question is: What wikipedia subjectively considers relevant or not. And since this IS subjective, it depends on the moderator's opinion if the content is relevant, therefore I NEED the approval before adding to the page, right? So that's my plan. I propose a content to a moderator, ask if he/she finds this relevant, and if approved, I add the content. (i.e: Wikipedia finds relevant that James McAvoy's favorite movie is The Goonies, but doesn't find relevant what mutant power he would like to have (considering he portrays an X-Men). One trivia is relevant, and the other is not) So how could I add my content, as trivia, like another trivia is already there allowed by this website? As far as I see, it's a matter of getting the subjective approval of an admin or moderator. You can't just impartially and objectively add content to a page, it depends on the good will of Wikipedia's admins. So that's my idea. MissBackstage (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

Dear JamesBWatson, what part of "I won't post anything if not previously approved by a moderator" did you not read?. I seriously don't understand how Wikipedia could be damaged if I ain't going to post ANYTHING if not approved by a moderator first. Tell me how can anyone post anything at all at wikipedia if you tell us HOW to post? Thank you

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: no response in >3 days - although, that said, this is actually not technically an unblock request. Please do not address future requests to a specific individual. Any unblock request must address all of the concerns, plus provide a way forward. Much of this discussion on this page has provided the background, now it's your role to put a plan into action the panda ₯’ 11:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make it easier for you such that you don't have to get explicit permission for every edit. Will you agree to not add any links to your own website or to your Youtube channel? If you are OK with that and are interested in contributing non-promotional material to Wikipedia, you'll have half-decent chance of being unblocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree to that, Jamie. In time, you mentioned about me being interested in "contributing non-promotional material" in the future, but in order to post anything in here ever again, I'd need to know the different between an information with source and promotional content. Again, I agree to your terms 100%, but to ever consider contributing again, I'd need to learn this difference first. Thank you. MissBackstage (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-controversial, reasonable sources for entertainment articles: notable magazines/websites (e.g. E!,Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone,PopMatters). If you stick with sources like that, there will be no problem. Even had your username not been the giveaway, it's easy to spot promotional accounts as they tend to add the same non-notable sources,blogs, etc. to multiple articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we indeed are close to an unblock. What's missing is an understanding of what a reliable source is, and how to ask for rulings on potential reliable sources. Most is obvious: blogs, fansites, facebook and even imdb are not reliable sources. Although an administrator will not verify all of your edits, I do highly recommend that you become adopted by an experienced Wikipedia, and have them review your proposed edits for awhile. Most adoption programs have a short "course" that includes such things as sourcing/COI/SPAM/etc. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, place for promotion, or gossip column. If you believe that you have a better grasp on sources and promotion, and agree to being mentored/adopted, then please advise. the panda ₯’ 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you itsJamie and DangerousPanda for all clarifications. In the past, I just added my content not because I'd consider my source as reliable, but because the information proof was available in video. Now, I get how Wikipedia works, and I'd be more than glad to be mentored/adopted on my edits. I'll look into the course, so I can perfectly understand the basics of Wikipedia and not ever cause this trouble to you, who moderate the site. MissBackstage (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]