User talk:WFG Writer

Welcome

Hello, WFG Writer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created World Financial Group, and I noticed that your username, "WFG Writer", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth 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 that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of 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. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Source no longer available"

May I introduce you to the wonderful tool called "The Internet Archive" (sometimes called "The Wayback Machine"). The New York Times article that you couldn't find is available archived here. As it turns out, the NYT article was a reprint of another article used as a citation, from The International Herald Tribune, so I've just used that source as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 26 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I edited a page and was blocked. The explanation was regarding my username, which I've requested to be change. I made the change because the referenced source is no longer accessible so cannot be verified. WFG Writer (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You forgot to address your violations of WP:COI and you forgot to tell us what you'd write about instead, if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 14:46, 26 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not sure if I have a conflict of interest. I do work for Transamerica/WFG, but in my experience that doesn't necessarily mean a COI but a better understanding of the company for which I work than possibly the IHT or NYT. Just curious if sarcasm breaks the rules of Wiki, since I pointed out that the NYT article link was no longer valid and got what I believe is a sarcastic reply. I understand the world of internet archives, thank you, which is why I went to The NY Times website to search for the article and could not access it. WFG Writer (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits are the among the worst possible manifestations of conflict of interest and cannot be tolerated. Your ability to make further appeals has been withdrawn. MER-C 18:49, 2 June 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.

Newspaper articles are also found in hard copies in libraries. Just because you couldn't access it doesn't mean no one could. You still have not said what you will edit about(though someone else will review your request). 331dot (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are clearly a violation of WP:COI. Carefully read the contents of WP:EXTERNALREL. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 15:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WFGW, as the editor whose sarcastic reply has you wondering, I do not believe the gentle ribbing I imparted should get me blocked, but I'll allow the admins to make that decision. The fact of the matter is that you don't appear to have understood my point: the NYT archives may or may not still contain the article, but the Wayback Machine is very likely to contain archival copies of URLs that are no longer valid, which is how I found the link to the article that I found. I will admit that I resorted to snark because your explanation for removing unflattering material from an article over which you have a clear conflict of interest seemed to be a convenient excuse at best (especially since the original article from The International Herald was still cited in the article elsewhere). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't realize that my change to clarify the type of company WFG is would be a COI or promotional. I have asked for my username to be changed and, although I understand the COI information, I would like to ask for assistance in how to update information on the page. Thank you for your consideration. WFG Writer (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is already an unblock request open (above). Chetsford (talk) 08:33, 28 May 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.