User talk:EQworksUK

Welcome!

Hi EQworksUK! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Garuda3 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: 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, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, 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 your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
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.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Acroterion (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2023 (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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

Sorry I'm new.There's a huge amount to understand about Wikipedia. I'm doing my best sorry- thought i was being asked to describe what i do (helping people) as with my name. Honest mistake - read policy now. Wasn't attempt to deceive or promote just explain. Happy to call myself EQman of similar if this works. Do I just have to confine what I write about me personally. Would that be ok on username page? Please let me know. I'm here to educate about emotional intelligence as there's an incredible amount of misinformation around it. Many thanks for your understanding and empathy for a newbie. :) EQworksUK (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read conflict of interest and paid editing and tell us in a new request how your edits will be consistent with these policies, as well as any other topics you might edit about as a general contributor. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

As requested I confirm that I am not paid by anyone nor will I be for any contributions made. I will remain consistant to the noted policies above. As I said I'm driven to educate. I don't believe I have any conflicts of interest currently and i will ensure i am mindful of this or my duties to inform admins if any such issues ariseEQworksUK (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Especially given your username, I simply don't believe your claim that you are completely unrelated to eqworks.co.uk. Yamla (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Yamla, I need your help please. Sorry I don't understand what is going on here. I never made the claim above. In fact my intention from the off was to explain who i was - hence the username saying who I am... Where was the intention to mislead? As I now understand this name is not allowed. Ok, i'm sorry I didn't realise I couldnt use my work name. I am happy to change to something as offered above which exlpains a little about me. My previous community experiences actually encouraged sharing of this type - so this is new to me. I see there are quite defined lines which i did not intend to cross. This is my area of expertise - what I'm mainly hoping to help with, my specialism for 20 years. No deceipt intended whatsoever. I even tried to explain on the page where I was asked to tell you about me - my work. If I keep tripping security alarms please please assume benign intent. So I kindly ask to explain what I need to do or where any remaining issues reside. I appreciate a helpful response. Thank you so very much EQworksUK (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL ^{Query Me!} 16:38, 1 April 2023 (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.

Contrary to your claim, you do indeed have a conflict of interest, please read WP:COI. If you are editing about your employer, you meet our definition of a paid editor and the Terms of Use require you to make a formal disclosure. Please do as I asked you in my decline of your request above, and someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC) I am not editing on behalf of any employer or paid to make edits. There's no employees or employer. It's just me, myself doing this because as i say, it's my area of expertise. I don't have an employer and I don't intend writing about me. Eqworks is me. The WP:COI says 'contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships'.I have not, nor do i intend to do any of these. I must be missing something here. As I keep repeating myself. Why are all admins etc. make these incorrect assumpions about me? I am not writing on behalf of anyone. I thought wikipedia was a place of evidence and fact.[reply]

If Eqworks is you, WP:COI most certainly applies. You are then "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself". In this case, apparently your business. It's a clear, unambiguous, and blatant conflict of interest. --Yamla (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why the assumption I'm contributing about myself. Where has this come from? EQworksUK (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep saying, my expertise is emotional intelligence and this is what I wish to help with. EQworksUK (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, what, are you all actually saying that 'because' I'm an emotional intelligence specialist I can't edit wikipedia on the area I understand best? EQworksUK (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said using my business name initially I thought was an act of openess, thinking authority or being open about exactly who i am was helpful. But if it gave a different impression that's not accurate or fair on me, then as I say above that was never my intention and was happy to change the name. EQworksUK (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I need to formally disclose please tell me where. EQworksUK (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally your business is eqworks.co.uk. We don't want you writing about your business. We want contributors who are neutral, who have no conflict of interest. You have a direct conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not like other sites in this regard. On other sites, you'd be the ideal person to write about EQworks. You'd be the ideal person to write about emotional intelligence. Not here. This will be my last response to you, though you are free to make a new unblock request if you believe the block is unfair or if you plan to write about subject areas for which you have no conflict of interest. A different admin would review any such unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am dumbstruck. I don't want to write about my business - where is the evidence i would do that? I've come here open from the beginning. I wish to just contribute about emotional intelligence. If you're saying that my exertise is somehow not appropriate for contributing about an area I know well, then that begs the question who is contributing to that are or indeed any area if experts are shunned? EQworksUK (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclusively use non-experts, people who don't know about the areas they are writing about - please confirm and I'll walk away now. EQworksUK (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly write about that. But it would be helpful if you changed your name so it doesn't look like every time you sign something you write, you're promoting your business. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's username policy is very clear in that account names cannot represent companies, organizations or groups of people. Since "EQworksUK" is the name of your business, it violates this policy. You will have to change your name if you want to continue editing here - sorry, but that is non-negotiable. Your last unblock request did not include a proposed new username.

We welcome the contributions of subject-matter experts, but they are subject to the same policies and guidelines as non-expert editors. You are considered one among equals here; Wikipedia:Expert editors contains advice for expert editors wishing to contribute to Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel and Drm310 and others,

Please you look to the very top you'll see my instant acceptance and offers to change my name. Why were these and my repeated explanations ignored? I kindly note it seems subsequent responders may not be reading previous messages.

I have not enjoyed this rather abrupt, highly suspicous, non-listening approach. It's the very opposite of what I was expecting from a wholly collaborative endeavour, with the values of educating such as wikipedia. One where the ability to openly discuss, negotiate ideas is paramount, surely?

Again, the assumptions I receive by all so far is concerning, and no I do not wish to be 'above equals', just given a fair hearing and that others on here will read references, use reason and logic when interacting with me. Nothing I have said ever on here could imply the type of arrogance all the approaches above accuse me of. But tell me (an open question to those above) do you acknowledge the right of all on hear to be given a fair chance, to be heard? This mental-emotional attitude is a key precept for me and should be for all, when engaging healthily with others.

If so then I'm in the right place but we've got off to a rocky start.

The problem is, we are listening to what you have said, and you are not listening to our concerns, or are not addressing them sufficiently You're just not convincing us that you will not edit from a conflict of interest, having expressed your determination to use a name that represents your business, and stating that you are focused solely on a topic that supports that business. Acroterion (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2023 (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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

unfair blocking please read my messages above thank you EQworksUK (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Close as stale. You may make a new, hopefully more persuasive, request. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference where i have shown any 'determination' over name. I have zero determination to use a name. The initial EQworksUK was immediately acknowledged by me in the first reply at the top - appy to change - offered EQman. So where did you get that idea from? i keep saying happy to change to EQman for instance or another if you feel that's an issue too for some reason. Just need to tell me - you're - not being specific. Is EQman not acceptable? If not about Phil1234 whatever. I'm cool with a thousand possibilities of names. just tell me what name works for you guys??

Your initial choice of name and explanation are what I'm referring to, where it was clear that you wished to contribute from a conflict of interest. I see no evidence that you've done more than marginally withfraw from that position with the smallest possible adjustments. We do not welcome attempts to explore the boundaries of acceptable promotional editing. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't choose a username for you. Please choose one that complies with WP:USERNAME. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]