User talk:MA-Andrews-505

April 2016

There have been two problems with this account: 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 or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, 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 a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth 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 kind of 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}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2016 (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.

MA-Andrews-505 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

MA-Andrews-505 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I understand the block was also created because the pages appeared as promotion for a journal. The pages being added to and edited by me are for not-for-profit legal journals. Additionally, all the journals are linked back to The University of New Mexico to support they are for educational use by all (they are 100% open access), not for profit-making. I question why these were flagged as promotion when many other legal journals have their own page? The information provided is based on pages that exist for other legal journals. If it can be explained what information should not be on the page, or be added to make them not act as promotional pages? I do not intend to advertise for the journals, but note them as reliable resources about the making of laws. If unblocked I will choose a username that is connected only to my email, and I will not make edits to the page that counter the mission of Wikipedia as a resource of information.

Accept reason:

I unblocked you. But, please, do not create articles about subjects to which you are personally involved (see: WP:COI). Instead, you can use the WP:Article for creation process and wait for other editors to review and accept your draft. If you continue promotion, you will be re-blocked promptly. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and renamed your account to the requested name. Your username now meets policy, but you will still need to wait for an admin to unblock you. Sit tight, and make sure you answer all their questions.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would remark that it's totally possible to promote non-profit entity, which is exactly what you did. Anyway, let's see what can be done. Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the three important principles above. Max Semenik (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Wikipedia is not a business directory, and this is not the place to post information on events or promotion. But can mention why the entry is notable. I understand that my situation constitutes a conflict of interest, as I am providing subject matter related to journals I have worked with. My hope is to provide basic information, but not opinions about the journals. If needed, I can place a connected contributor template on the articles.

I do ask for guidance on adding information that is notable for one or more of the journals. Should this be something left to others, or can I still make edits? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MA-Andrews-505 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello MA-Andrews-505, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Natural Resources Journal, New Mexico Law Review, and elsewhere has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My account is still blocked from making any updates or changes. Is there something else I'm supposed to be doing? MA-Andrews-505 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking--but the category of "promotion" is still unclear. I have no idea if adding factual information that very few people would know about is considered promotion, especially as this is for open-access legal journals. The link provided 29 April 2016 is not helpful.

If your goal is to add "factual information" about subjects to which you are personally connected (for example, about an organization to which you belong), than it is kind of promotion. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who else would write about it, or know the facts of the organization. The rules seem far too grey and I'm no longer interested in trying to figure this out. Thank you for your help. Please close this account.

Well, if the organization was WP:NOTABLE, somebody else would write about it. That is how Wikipedia works. We have an inclusion criteria called WP:NOTABILITY. If the subject is notable, then there should be somebody not connected to the subject to write about it. By the way, the account cannot be "closed", that is part of the terms of use that you have accepted. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]