User talk:WikiBalandina

Hello, WikiBalandina, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

WikiBalandina, good luck, and have fun. – PamD 17:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PamD 17:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, WikiBalandina. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Reader Magazine, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Do you have any connection the The Reader, as outlined above? PamD 17:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to The Reader Magazine. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message[edit]

Thank you for your message about The Reader Magazine, Grayfell. You clearly have a great deal of experience when it comes to editing Wikipedia, have made valuable contributions and have helped, it appears, others to get an idea of the pillars of Wikipedia. The information I added-- and which you undid -- included, in the history section, what The Reader Magazine used to be called since the time it began in San Bernardino county fifteen years ago. Other information I have included, such as the social and environmental impact of its business model and its circulation history is data-driven and/or known to those of us who have followed it. Without this stuff, The Reader, which has provided information in our region for fifteen years appears in Wikipedia in a less-than accurate, reductionist manner that is inconsistent with what an encyclopedia is. Your version eliminates language that objectively describes The Reader Magazine and its character. Please explain why you believe a magazine's circulation history, name history, or its environmental impact, are promotional and/or shouldn't be included? I tried to adopt the neutral tone (thanks in part to your suggestion to read through the Wiki tips, including the five pillars) that is the coin of the realm. In an effort to fill out the description and more accurately create sections, I included a positive statement-- cited-- about The Reader, and its nomination to an award because they are not disputed and awards and nominations to awards are found on many of the Wikipedia pages I've seen. I changed the name of the section in which the CJR article is mentioned to controversy because the article was disputed by The Reader Magazine and the article led to a law suit (according to the article that was cited), which by definition makes it what most would call a controversy. How does eliminating these distinctions improve the entry? To eliminate these distinctions, which did not come easy, and the information I spent time to research because they sound "promotional" appears to me to be a leap into subjectivity on your part. I respect your contributions Grayfell and thank you for talking. WikiBalandina (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Since you are acknowledging that you are involved with the magazine, you have a WP:COI and should generally not be editing the article directly. Instead, propose all edits to the article's talk page, with reliable sources. If you are paid to edit this article you must disclose that fact, otherwise you will likely be banned, see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is a policy related to Wikipedia's terms of use. This is not optional, so please acknowledge that you understand this.

As I'm sure you can imagine, Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines related to what counts as promotional and what doesn't, because Wikipedia places a great value on neutrality and verifiability. One of the ways this works is that Wikipedia places much greater weight on independent sources, especially non-routine ones. The information you added was covering routine details to excessive length in overly flattering terms. These additions also lacked independent sources. Interviews and blogs are not usable for this kind of thing. Using interviews to include promotional blurbs is a misuse of Wikipedia, and is not what Wikipedia is for.

As one example among several, how is the reader supposed to know what The Magazine Innovation Center is? It sounds impressive, but there's no context, and it appears to be a blog, which is not usable for much on Wikipedia (see WP:UGC). Articles should almost never use academic titles, such as "Dr." (per WP:DOCTOR), so mentioning Dr. Samir Husni without any additional context is promotional, but not informative. Problems like this are repeated multiple times in your additions.

See WP:CSECTION for an essay explaining why "criticism" sections should be avoided, when possible. Simply put, they are a form of editorializing.

Non-notable awards (such as most awards that don't have articles) need WP:SECONDARY sources including context, because otherwise they promote a subject without providing any information. This is especially true for nominations, which are even less informative. This is a recurring problem on Wikipedia, and if you've seen non-notable awards or award nominations being mentioned in other articles, remove them or let me know about it, and I will remove them. Regardless, because there are so many articles with so many problems, using precedent is a mixed-bag on Wikipedia, and it's better to go by WP:CONSENSUS (such as that established by guidelines policy).

Please see WP:BRD, and do not revert again without discussion, to avoid WP:EDITWARing. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

− Thanks for your message. I'm a reader and ardent fan, like quite a few other people in our area. Evidence The Reader Magazine has been published since 2001 appears at its site. As such, it is incorrect to elevate what amounts to poor reporting to what would make a reader doubt the date the Reader first appeared. Someone disputing something doesn't automatically justify elevating what they are saying into the realm of how a thing is defined-- which is what you are doing. Please do not include this sentence again without explaining why you would keep it when evidence of when the publication started is available at the Reader's website. Your version is unfairly critical and in your admirable attempt to achieve neutrality, you have eliminated information which would lead to an accurate and complete picture of The Reader. For example, the heading/term "Critical Reception" is not appropriate if you are eliminating positive critical reception, as it is reductionist, unbalanced and as such not fair to the subject. Thank you for your contribution and for talking. WikiBalandina (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC) WikiBalandina (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added this to the article without any sources: In 2015, the company’s management concluded two years of market, financial and strategic planning in order to grow the company’s Southern California publication into the first printed publication to reach every American home. Co-founders Christopher Theodore and Hajnalka Hogue have said it is their intention to grow The Reader Magazine into “the category leader of the $140 billion U.S. local advertising market”. Additionally, you have been WP:EDITWARing to insert obscure and flattering information into an article which has a history of spammy, promotional edits. For these reasons I am skeptical that you don't have any conflict of interest. The GIIRS and Environmental Paper Network information would need solid, secondary sources, as I have already explained. Columbia Journalism Review is considered a reliable source which is independent of Reader's Magazine. Wikipedia favors sources which are independent of the subject for establishing WP:DUE weight, and for neutrality. Your additions are still far, far too promotional in tone. Further discussions should be held on the article's talk page: Talk:The Reader Magazine. If you feel it is necessary to seek additional input, WP:NPOVN would be one good choice. Grayfell (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not actually addressed my concerns/points. You mention that I have inserted "obscure" information, which included the actual former names of the publication and its circulation history. Did you know this information? It would appear your track record (at least on this particular page) shows information that is central to the publication is omitted (and actually eliminated) by you. It would appear you would rather have less (or no) information if it does not come from a source you deem as "solid" (to use your word). As such you are not adopting a neutral tone/manner in your editing. One of the pillars-- all of which you suggest people read before editing-- is that rules of Wikipedia are evolving. I've read elsewhere that Wikipedia asks editors to be bold. It is arguable that you favor attempting to limit someone from contributing what they know about a subject-- all in the name of what doesn't appear to be a mindset that is collaborative or in the spirit of Wikipedia. Sure, this platform has rules-- but acting as if you know everything, that you know who people are (you assumed I had a conflict of interest) spells death to creative collaboration and the will to contribute. In any event, thank you for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBalandina (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2015‎

Yes, I am removing (or "eliminating" if you want) information from the article which possibly may be true, but which is poorly sourced and is not encyclopedically vital to the topic. That's precisely what I have been trying to explain. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, and is not a platform for promotion. A blow-by-blow account of how the circulation numbers has increased over the years paints a rosy picture to advertisers, but is otherwise far too trivial. The greater problem is that those numbers were not supported by the attached source! How is it that you know specific circulation numbers, spanning years, without a source? Reliable sources are used to support the information in the article, not provide supplemental reading. If you can find reliable, independent sources supporting these numbers, then you can bring that up for discussion at the article's talk page. The flip-side of being WP:BOLD is WP:BRD, which I linked to above. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Reader Magazine. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Reader Magazine is cited as one of only 1,961 B-Certified companies (along with Seventh Generation, Etsy and others). Why os this fact not yet part of this entry?[edit]

The Reader Magazine is a California public benefit corporation certified by the nonprofit B Lab to meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. My understanding is that this is a very difficult designation to earn and is at the heart of the publication's identity, given that there are very few magazines that have earned this designation, cited at the non-profit, independent (https://www.bcorporation.net/). Why does this information not appear yet at The Reader Magazine wikipedia entry? WikiBalandina (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any secondary citations for that? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Reader Magazine. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiBalandina. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock

I never had more than one account. In fact, this should suffice as evidence.

Is a person in Wikipedia not innocent of an accusation until proven guilty? Why would my word not be considered as legitimate as those who accuse me of this?

There is an hierarchical caste to Wikipedia beneath the liberal veneer of this platform-- which as I have said elsewhere will turn off many people, until the arbitrariness is gone from the platform's culture.

Rather than having someone you have already punished-- without providing evidence, including an honest account of how that evidence was obtained-- prove their innocence, you and others in this platform should abide by the same rule of law that makes societies work-- which is you provide evidence and proof. Otherwise, the jargon, "good humor", community-- is a sham.

What I did was to stand up for editing of a single entry. I documented and explained myself in detail as to why I did so. My belief is that experienced people on this platform, who invest a great deal of time on it, use accusations of sock puppetry as a final tool in keeping their versions alive and ridding themselves of people who disagree with them.

This has been my experience-- and you who are reading this should know that this is no way to build an open, useful, legitimate, collaborative encyclopedia.

What is your evidence? How did you come to obtain the evidence? You should be the ones to provide a full and honest accounting of the evidence. This aspect of your platform is a sad spectacle. My personal experience proves (at least to me) that it is not collaboration, openness and merit that rules here-- it is egoism, arbitrariness and pettiness. Thankfully, I have better things to do than this. Good luck. }}

What an Odd Experience This Has Been[edit]

I definitely see Wikipedia differently now that I have edited an article here-- and it is not in a positive sense. Prior to this experience, I saw the descriptions as highly credible, neutral and complete. If the experience I have witnessed on the Reader Magazine page is widespread, the descriptions are not credible, not neutral and incomplete. My limited experience here has shown me there is a great deal of cliquishness, arbitrariness and narrow-minded egotism in which people take actions not out of an interest to describe something or someone accurately but for the thrill of seeing their edits live as the description of a thing or person. I never had more than one account. That I would be blocked from using this platform is a great signal to me that this platform has flaws to the extent that my time would be better spent elsewhere. WikiBalandina (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]