User talk:Amberastar

February 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--John (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a spammer, and blocking is not supposed to be used for Conflicts of interest.

Decline reason:

So far, all of your edits have consisted solely of promoting your own podcast. I'm afraid that, yes, you are a spammer. Since this block is reasonable, and since the problem it addresses is not solved, I have no grounds for overturning it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 12 February 2011 (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.

I did not add the information about my podcast, I simply corrected erroneous information. The podcast was already mentioned in the article, added by some other edit.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I made edits to an article to fix factually incorrect information regarding a publication that I produce. I added citations as suggested in the new user introduction, and I was then accused of spam, and banned from ever editing Wikipedia by John I had no bad intentions, and tried to follow the rules. WOW. If I am unblocked I will use the discussion pages in the future before editing the article if it is something I am directly involved in. My bad. Sorry guys. Amberastar (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

OK, as long as you've read and understood the COI guideline and understand that it's not appropriate for you to be adding links to material you've published, I'm happy to unblock you. As you've discussed with FisherQueen, if you think your material could be of genuine encyclopaedic benefit in an article, by all means suggest it on the talk page (it's preferable but not essential, that you declare your connection). You might like to use {{Request edit}} to draw attention to your request or visit me and/or FisherQueen, assuming she's willing, if your request doesn't attract any attention for a few days. Happy editing, and sorry about your rocky start to Wikipedia—most people in this sort of situation find it gets better from here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at your web site, and I can see how your podcast might be a useful link on that article. Can you see how your actions presented the appearance of spamming? I would suggest that you read the conflict of interest guidelines, and then suggest, based on your understanding of the rules, what you might do differently if unblocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the conflict of interest guidelines which states: Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. I have concluded that the edits I made were okay, but may have been seen as spammy because I am sure this happens a lot on Wikipedia. This was not my intention. I would like to stress, I never added the material about the podcast. I only tried to correct it, and add citations to do things appropriately. If unblocked, I would like to put the mention of the podcast back in the article because it is an important part of Alan Watts internet phenomena. I do not particularly care if there is a link or if my name is mentioned, that wasn't why I edited the article. I only edited it to correct a wrong fact. Going forward, I will monitor the section about the podcast to make sure it is accurate, but if anything I will try to use the discussion page also to discuss the matter. Overall this is really all I can do. I am just very disappointed that I was blocked from editing because of this. I saw my actions as correct since I really am the most knowledgeable person about the podcast. How can someone who isn't involved know the facts? The original material regarding the podcast seemed almost made up, so I just tried to make it accurate. Thank you I really appreciate your help and looking in to the matter FisherQueen Amberastar (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you started on the article's talk page, and got consensus from neutral users to see whether this information would be helpful in the article or not. Once other people weigh in, there'll be no more question of self-promotion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to remove my friendly conversation, and also my suggestion about how to easily meet Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and also you've chosen to remove your own acknowledgement that you understand the conflict of interest guidelines. Am I correct in assuming that you are rejecting my suggestion, and that you are not willing to discuss your desired addition with other Wikipedia users rather than adding it yourself? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to my unblock request. I do acknowledge that if there is a conflict of interest that I should use the discussion pages. I would like the opportunity to do that. Thanks for getting back to me. (sorry if I am putting things in the wrong place, I admit that I am really new to Wikipedia, and I am learning) Amberastar (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]