[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:LocalRachel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, LocalRachel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Coaching, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Technopat (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.
Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

  • Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
  • Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 this reason, you must:
    • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the 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 by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

as a new member I have taken on board the feedback given by wikipedia and wish to still contribute. LocalRachel is me - it's not an organisation or a company it's a handle I used when I ran at a local election which is useful for community contributions such as this. Therefore my name does not seem to breach the wiki policy but I can change this name if you are able to evidence otherwise or suggest that it would be more useful to do so.

Anything I do on wikipedia gets me no financial gain although I am a professional coach and someone who is interested in social entrepreneurism (i.e. the world being a better place, people being happier and more peaceful etc). I'm wanting to increase the quality of the Wiki page on coaching because I could see it's been flagged. The work I previously did to the page (on social coaching and community coaching etc) was to use quotes from different (and unrelated to me or the company I work for or own) companies as there is not one international or UK based authority on the subject that I am aware of (although the BACP are starting to contribute to this area which I am very pleased about). The industry is self regulated (which unnerves me a little) and raising the area will contribute to awareness and hopefully in time a better service with better regulation.

I would like to ask why all my contribution was deleted? The work I did and referenced was ok and neutral as a brief introduction in line with the other sections on that page. If you had a concern with my example of community social coaching would it have been better to simply have edited or removed that?

I am offering a tool for peace which falls outside of a religious or political opinion (both of which have many wiki pages dedicate to these areas and individuals and parties/groups etc I will add) so it does not feel 'neutral' for wikipedia to not also permit the ideology of another perspective and a demonstration of it's use. Surely just deleting or editing my last sentence on when the update would be coming would have been better for the public? I now realise that this was not useful at indicating neutrality.

I would also like to ask: If I am the primary source who is working on something alone then should I not quote my data and research? How would this information get on to wiki otherwise?

Much thanks for your feedback on this when you have a chance as I would like to ensure I know what is right and contribute in the proper fashio. Best wishes LocalRachel (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While your username isn't a problem, this unblock request suggests that if unblocked, you intend to publish or cite your own work here. That isn't allowed. Get your work published in a reliable source, like a peer-reviewed academic journal or something, and then we could reference it. There are several policies and guidelines (linked in the following list) that you need to learn thoroughly before you can be unblocked:

Study those concepts and try again with another unblock request when you believe you're ready, provided you are willing to abide by these restrictions. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2013 (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.

Please read WP:OR about research that is original. You cannot put it on Wikipedia - that is not what we do. It has to be reviewed independently and reliably (see WP:RS, and then preferably added by someone else. If you are alone and unreviewed in RS, then sorry, no. Your research cannot be used here. This is an encyclopaedia. We record what is already known. A magazine like 'The Transactions of the Psychotheraputic Exobiological Society' can publish new material in their field. If their field and the society really existed, we would probably regard them as a sound source - so long as that could be shown by their history and notability. They would have the capability of reviewing new material. We don't. We summarise at at least one remove from the origin. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Please can Amatulić indicate how their post has complied with the Wiki guides: *Assume Good Faith and *Please do not bite the newcomers It would appear that I have made 1 mistake only out of the mulitple things that I have contributed which was to show an example of an area of coaching that was self published by me. I have already acknowledged this (even though I find this very elitist - I have taken it on board as Wikipedia is a business like any other and is interested in the 'big names' not the small ones your posts have allowed me to learn). I have no impulse to try to contribute to Wikipedia at all after the nature and directness of the response from you despite the Wikipedia policies to the contrary. Are you suggesting that all contributors only contribute to an area which they have NO prior knowledge (as knowledge would link to interest and interest would link to an opinion which would mean they could not be neutral as they already have an opinion)? In which case no-one can edit the Coaching page as Coaching comes from our parents as part of their parenting role so this means no-one is neutral stritly as they have been in receipt of the coaching experience. I hope you find my feedback stimulating. Best wishes, Rachel.

No one has claimed you were editing in bad faith. No one has been rude, no one has "bitten" you. However, you did violate some core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your comment above suggests that you have not yet read or comprehended the links pointed out to you in your unblock request above. When you do understand those concerns, feel free to post a new unblock request. No need to request a name change.
As for contributing where you have no prior knowledge, no, that isn't the meaning intended. Expertise in a topic area is appreciated. But Wikipedia articles cannot rely on personal expertise. You may write knowledgeably about a topic, but what you write must be referenced to verifiable, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. You cannot cite yourself, self-published sources like personal blogs and press releases, other Wikipedia articles, or user generated content like forum postings. You cannot engage in original research that has not already been covered in reliable, independent sources.
Again, you are welcome to post another unblock request demonstrating that you understand the issues involved. An unblock request is the only way to attract another administrator's attention to unblock you. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

[edit]

I contributed to a page on Coaching but included an example of a specific type of coaching under one of the sections by signposting and quoting my own work - I now understand that is outside policy. However, all of my contribution on that page has been deleted rather than just this one mistake which seems a shame as the page is in need of as much Love as it can get! Please can someone reinstate the parts that are of benefit to the world as as you can see I have been promptly blocked and am unable to do this myself. I now know to use an editor to proofread before submission which I did not know about beforehand. Much thanks. LocalRachel (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to tell you this, but this is not the 'appropriate' way to request an edit to that page....the 'appropriate' way would be to write to the talk page of that article. Unfortunately, anyone you 'ping' using this template is unlikely to have any familiarity with the subject or article, and so is probably going to be unable to judge the 'appropriateness' of the requested edit as described. (Your request is rather vague).
Honestly, given the 'content' of the comments on your blocks, any request would probably need to be very specific and well justified. Revent (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page signatures

[edit]

When writing to a talk page on Wikipedia, please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your messages....this lets people know who they are talking to. Revent (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revent. Thank you for your input. I'm not sure if you're aware but once you're blocked you don't get to write on the 'talk' pages of Wiki content pages so I don't have that option hence why I've written this here. I am also not able to contact editors that have put themselves forward to deal with undeleting specifically either! The things I wrote on the Coaching page were just to add a few more categories of Coaching to the page with a few sentences about each. The Coaching page is struggling with lots of issues (and considering my input was blocked I'm surprised that there aren't other bits that have been removed or swiftly re-written anyway). I'm awaiting a response from people earlier in this thread so perhaps someone will be able to compartmentalise my contribution and reinstate the parts that complied with Wiki policies as my contribution was very minimal anyway. Best wishes, LocalRachel (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nods. I am aware. You should be aware, however, that the main reason I said it would need to be extremely specific and well justified is that any user who edits that page 'on behalf of a blocked user' is taking a risk of getting a block themselves as your meatpuppet. It would pretty much have to be things like adding specific independently cited facts, and they'd have to go through the article's talk page themself.
Given the reason given for the denial of unblock....I have to say I'm personally not interested. Revent (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LocalRachel&oldid=1043414775"