User talk:Liana at RMP

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia!, Liana at RMP! I'm an editor like so many others, and I just thought I'd say hi. This is a really great project, and I hope you'll stay! Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, our most basic guidelines on how to edit and interact with other editors
The Manual of Style, some quick pointers on the basic quality standards Wikipedia Articles have
How to edit an article, a great starting read
The Sandbox, a place to try editing without actually editing an article
Finally, my favorite, the Ignore All Rules policy (but ignore them within reason, of course)
Oh yes, and remember to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)!

If you need any help at all with anything, don't be afraid to ask me. You can either type "{{helpme}}" right onto your talkpage and then ask your question, or you can ask me on my talkpage.

Welcome to Wikipedia RMP2014 Yours truly, Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolex initiative

Hi RMP2014. I think your suggestions for additions based on the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative are all very welcome. I can't see why anyone would object to that material being added to artist articles in general. So don't feel you have to ask permission in every case - I suggest you go ahead and add. If any other editor has a problem they will soon challenge. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any personal or professional connection to the Rolex company or the initiative programme, you must read WP:COI before making any further edits relating to it, and should not edit the articles directly. I'd suggest that the Arts Initiative was really only of relevants to articles about the proteges in such cases, and not (unless there was significant and specific press coverage) the mentors. --McGeddon (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you about press coverage, McG. Although I don't see why such patronage is not relevant to a fuller understanding of the mentors. Perhaps the Rolex Initiative article itself is the best place to list both proteges and mentors? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that it adds much to the mentor pages to say "this massively famous composer/director/etc helped out with a mentorship programme, one time", by itself - these people do a lot of things. If it had some impact on their work or their mentor went on to significant achievements, perhaps, but by itself it seems unremarkable.

And yes, it does seem an oversight that the Rolex Initiative website doesn't mention a single mentor or protege by name. --McGeddon (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps McGeddon could advise how a more "official" direction could be given to your efforts. It's obviously a waste of your time to ask in each indvidual case, when there may be a global policy decision that would affect you. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE is the basic policy: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Every edit suggested by this user has been sourced to the Rolex website, which isn't a third-party source - only the mentoring that received significant press coverage would be worth recording in an encyclopedia.

If RMP2014 has any questions, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions might be the best place. Please do declare any professional link you might have to Rolex, though. --McGeddon (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, McGeddon, that's very useful . And very sound advice, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC) (p.s. any chance of a cheap watch, RMP?)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I'm afraid I can't help with a watch. RMP2014 (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joking aside, please clarify your connection, if any, to the Rolex Initiative. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to add a brief description of your connection / intended contributions, in summary form, on your User Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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) 14:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This seems a little premature. What is the rationale exactly? Did you read the above dicussion before imposing this block? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported to UAA by none other than the very McGeddon engaged in the discussion above. Since the editor had edited on a subject clearly related to the username, I blocked. He's free to change it and be unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, fair enough. It seems that (joking aside) McGeddon seeks to get the issue clarified in a speedy and direct way. So all this user has to do is change their username, to something more anonymous, and everything will be hunky dory? To me, that seems ironic. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what I can do to avoid any issues, I had contacted editors through email before posting the updates and was advised to use the talk pages instead of direct postings. Does this mean that all of my posts/edit request are also suspended? Many thanks, RMP2014 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a response from Daniel Case or McGeddon, I can only suggest that you request a name change. As far as I know, all of the edits and requests you have made to date will stand for the time being. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged it when I realised the username was an abbreviation of the Rolex Mentor Protege thing; Wikipedia has a straightforward username rule that editors can't have account names which "unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product". The block template there is a little heavy-handed - the user's edits were mostly fine, with only a couple of direct edits to add the RMP initiative to articles. Raising issues on talk pages is the correct advice, although the user should also be clarifying that they are at Wikipedia on behalf of Rolex to increase encyclopaedia coverage of one of Rolex's projects, if this is what's happening. --McGeddon (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do is, per the block notice, use {{unblock-spamun}} to propose a new username, and if unblocked, go directly to WP:CHU/SIMPLE (do not pass Go, do not collect $200) and, following the instructions there, put in for the change.

I would also direct your intention to the readable version of our conflict-of-interest policy and consider if the way you would like to edit is compatible with that policy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, this block should have been a softerblock, not a hard block. I have been advising this editor on OTRS for a while now, and she has been carefully following my advice on proper conduct for a COI editor, by posting edit requests on talk pages rather than making substantive changes to articles. The only infraction here is the username, not the conduct. Many editors have conflicts of interest. The good ones don't try to evade detection. This editor has been acting in good faith. Examine the contribution history.

In my opinion, the proper course of action would have been to post a username warning. Had that been done, this editor would have responded properly.

Please reconsider. If you don't object, I could change the block to a softerblock myself, or unblock for the purpose of changing the username. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to that.

To briefly explain my choice of {{uw-spamublock}}, this user used an acronym for the name of the subject they were editing about as a username, for edits to a variety of pages that were centered around a link to those pages. Under standard practice at UAA, as it seems to me, we use that block in those situations.

If someone like yourself or someone else knowledgeable about username enforcement had said something at UAA or here, that might have changed things. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually I do monitor UAA, but I would not have made the connection in this case, because in my OTRS communication with this user, the username never came up.... until now, when she wrote me that she was blocked and included a link to this talk page.

I was actually surprised to see this block resulting from a UAA report, because the practice at UAA (as far as I have observed) is to decline blocking COI usernames who have submitted to WP:AFC in accordance with COI guidelines. While there is no AFC involvement here, this case is similar in that we have a COI username trying to adhere to the guidelines.

I will unblock and instruct the user in OTRS to change her username before attempting any other edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Hello RMP20114, you are unblocked for the purpose of changing your username.

Before you do anything else on Wikipedia, please go to WP:CHU/Simple to request a change of username to something that represents only you as an individual, not your employer. It is acceptable to associate your username with your employer as long as the username clearly belongs to one person. We have a user "Mark at Alcoa" for example, who is a representative of Alcoa, but that username clearly belongs to him alone, not to his employer. Or you could request any other personalized username.

Administrators cannot change user names. We have a class of user called 'bureaucrat' who can do that. After you make your request, please wait until a bureaucrat responds to it, before you resume your activity on Wikipedia. When your account is renamed, your current contribution history will be associated with the new username. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]