User talk:TSNMacDonald

TSNMacDonald, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TSNMacDonald! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at CHUM (AM). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TSNMacDonald. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to CHUM (AM), gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:TSNMacDonald. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TSNMacDonald|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to CHUM (AM), give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:TSNMacDonald, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TSNMacDonald|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. You really need to respond. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm going to be as clear as possible on this. The information included in the section regarding ratings was factually incorrect and not sourced. Secondly, it is not germain to the history of the station. Thirdly, someone has made an unquantifiable judgment to remove names of on-air people from the list of Notable Talent. It's a needless and unwarranted edit and whoever is responsible for it is unknowledgeable in this area. Finally, my interest lies only in ensuring accuracy and there was none of it to be found in the two sections that were corrected. That someone stubbornly and without any justification chose to revert it for their own unstated purposes is embarrassing.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for WP:COI. That and only that is relevant to your unblock request, but you have not addressed these violations. Yamla (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2020 (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.

Perhaps you should be more concerned about factual information being posted than harassing a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSNMacDonald (talk • contribs)

Please don't modify declined unblock requests for your currently active block, please. You are welcome to make a new unblock request if you wish, though! WP:GAB goes into more details, and you'll want to specifically address your perceived violations of WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are in fact incorrect. This was also posted as a reason "...uncollegiality, inclusion of unverified information (including BLP information), and whitewashing of critical content. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020." First of all "uncollegiality" is not a word. Secondly, while you pedantically fixate on one issue, you conveniently ignore the reasons for the edits. Removing something that is factually incorrect is not, by any definition, whitewashing. Also re-adding pertinent talent names is also not whitewashing.

uncollegiality. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]