User talk:Edit2update293

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.

Edit2update293 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

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

Decline reason:

The account User:Edits already exists. --Chris (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (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.

Edit2update293 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

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

Decline reason:

Same problem. You need a name that represents you, not the gallery you've added so many pointers to. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Edit2update293 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

edit_2_update (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. --Chris (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I was blocked b/c of my username and keep trying to rename my account but my requests keep getting denied. Is this because the names are already in use? (Pkgediting (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)) ...and welcome to Wikipedia. I guessing you might be connected to Paul Kasmin Gallery. If so, it's probably worth you having a read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Copy-paste just to be on the safe side. I don't want to discourage you from contributing, Wikipedia needs help with many articles about artists, but contributions are unlikely to survive if they are seen as promoting the interests of a gallery or if material is copied from the gallery's site. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sean. Thank you for letting me know; I appreciate it! Would you mind telling me a little bit about what might be infringing on Wiki's policies? In particular we just finished editing the William Copley page, so maybe that's the issue? Thank you again. Pkgediting (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What caught my eye was the Iván Navarro (artist) article. Some of the material appears to have been copied and pasted from here and here both of which are presumably covered by copyright. The material would need to be rewritten. Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#How_to_write_acceptable_content may help. Conflict of interest issues would only arise if you were making edits to promote the gallery and you aren't doing that. For example, editors connected to a gallery, a company, an organization etc sometimes just add their site to the external links section for many articles. A series of edits like that tend to be treated as promotional (see Wikipedia:Spam) and are often reverted. Adding actual content like "X is represented by Paul Kasmin Gallery" citing the gallery's site as a reference is fine. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for letting us know. The issue will be taken care of very soon. Pkgediting (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Les Lalanne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yves Saint Laurent

Mark Ryden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Museum of Contemporary Art

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

Hello Pkgediting. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Nancy Rubins, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- is it possible you might be able to explain which aspect of the article is a problem? I would be happy to remove any information that indicates a conflict of interest.

Removing all mentions of your own gallery "Paul Kasmin Gallery" would be an admirable start then we could be sure you were not just trying to self promote.Theroadislong (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the list of Rubins's exhibitions, where Paul Kasmin Gallery was mentioned. I do not believe that listing galleries where Rubins has shown is manipulative; regardless, I have removed the entire section. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed?

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Pkgediting, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edit2update293. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but 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 or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Makoto Saito (designer) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We gave you a chance[edit]

As soon as you were unblocked, you went back to adding spamlinks to Paul Kasmin Gallery. Since you don't seem to be willing to contribute in a non-promotional manner to this project, it becomes necessary to block you to prevent further spamming.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. 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.

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 9 March 2012 (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).

Edit2update293 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It appears as if the people who are editing under this username are all on different levels of understanding of what the rules of Wikipedia are; while some people have an understanding of what counts as advertising/promotional editing to Wikipedia pages, others do not. We apologize for the inconsistencies and would like to be unblocked as we are committed to making sure that future issues do not happen again. Edit2update293 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not allow shared/role accounts, it should be one account = one person, since that is not the case here you will remain blocked Jac16888 ^Talk 17:49, 9 March 2012 (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).

Edit2update293 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay. If this is the case, then we will gladly ensure that only one person of our team have power over this account. Edit2update293 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

one of the primary interests of a gallery is to support its artists. Which is precisely the conflict of interest; we're trying to create an encyclopedia; you're trying to support (i.e., promote) your artists. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:56, 9 March 2012 (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.

The problem is that whichever member of the team it is, they are still making edits on pages with which they have a clear conflict of interest, if its your job to edit wikipedia about a subject then there is obviously a bias. We want editors whose reason for being here is to improve Wikipedia, not further their own aims, and that does not appear to be the case with this account--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The people previously under this account volunteer at the gallery but edit the pages of represented artists as a way of improving and providing extra information on them. People who are editing under this account are not just adding external links to the gallery (and have now been informed that that's not allowed) but are adding additional information about the artists from newspaper articles, magazine interviews, etc. I would sincerely like to continue adding information about the artists and completely understand and agree not to add an external link to the gallery as it is against Wikipedia's rules. Edit2update293 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, regardless of how many "different" people edit under your handles, and regardless of how many handles you've had, you are in fact nothing more than a WP:SPA engaging in nothing more than WP:ADVERT. You've been given many chances to prove otherwise and have failed every single time. Why don't you go work on your own website instead? On your own site, you can promote the gallery all you want. Wikipedia is not a free promotional space for people such as you. Have a look at WP:COI and this [1]. Qworty (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be rude. I understand what went wrong, and as much as you may feel otherwise, one of the primary interests of a gallery is to support its artists. I don't see the issue in providing more detailed information about the Wikipedia pages of artists. Why can't this account continue to do so without adding references to Paul Kasmin Gallery, with positive/negative/neutral information included about such artists? Edit2update293 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's exactly what a conflict of interest is. You guys would not be editing in the best interest of this encyclopedia, you would be editing "to support its [the gallery's] artists". --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand the problem here, I just feel a little confused; the reason that any one of us were assigned to editing Wikipedia was for two reasons: Wikipedia is a common source for people across the world to know more about the subjects it features and we happen to have access to a lot of information that would serve as great contributions to certain pages of living and deceased individuals, in this case artists, some of whose pages weren't even created yet before we began editing. In that sense, the contributions would and have so far helped increase the amount of verifiable information about sone subjects. If having a wider array of subjects that wasn't just limited to art to edit would serve as a redeeming quality to unblock this account, I would certainly comply, but I'm wondering, why would the contributions of someone who has an above-average knowledge about certain individuals not be wanted on Wikipedia? Had we not been working for the gallery and were instead solely people who love art, would it be the same problem? I don't see how adding information about individuals and agreeing to no longer include reference to our gallery for the sake of "plugging" is still problematic to the existence of this account. Edit2update293 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]