Jump to content

User talk:Queenstreetbackpackers

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

May 2011

[edit]

Hello Queenstreetbackpackers. 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. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Queenstreetbackpackers) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to represent an entity. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. 99.12.243.70 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. 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, celebrity or other well-known individual, 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. See WP:FAQ/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, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on 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, please see how to appeal a block. Alexf(talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here?

[edit]

Hi Alex,

I understand why you have blocked our account as both articles are either directly or indirectly related to our business, yet we have written our contributions from what we felt was a neutral point of view, providing time lines, historical facts and information on the surrounding areas from both contributions.

As it turns out we may have not done enough or maybe should have created one articles from both contributions, as both were during different time periods of the building itself felt it was better served to write about them that way. As it turns out we were wrong.

How can we go about making our contribution acceptable for Wikipedia or would we be better to delete both articles and re write them as one contribution.

We look forward to your reply.

I'd say request an unblock formally. An uninvolved admin will consider the request. You need to change your user name as it is in violation (group name). You need to declare your conflict of interest and why you want to write on the subject. As per your other question, the articles may be better joined, but that's just one person's opinion. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages. -- Alexf(talk) 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Unblock

[edit]
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.

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

Requested username:

Request reason:

In order to be compliant with the rules of Wikipedia with our username. When we originally wrote the article it was to provide a historic footprint of the then Imperial hotel to recent times, an account which spans over 125 years and is around the time Auckland was declared a city. As the current tenants of the building we thought it would be of historical interest especially to those who pre-date the current buildings occupancy. Also the surrounding area has changed so much over the last 40-50 years from being a thriving area to red light district and back again, it's amazing when you have both lived in or remember those times. Unfortunately we probably didn't go about it the right way and would be better to combine both articles so it shows a real time line from start to finish. The reason we didn't do this to begin with, both times are very different eras in the buildings history. Originally built as a hotel then changed and modified into a backpackers hostel.We understand the reason why we were blocked and are trying to rectify the situation through the appeal process, hopefully you can see that ours was a naive mistake and one which we won't make again

Decline reason:

Unfortunately nothing you say indicates that you intend to do anything other than to promote your business. I do not doubt that you came here in good faith, but the kind of editing you have come here to do is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we proceed.

[edit]

I understand you've already made up your mind. But in all honesty, whats to stop someone from having a neutral party from writing a wiki article which is related to their business? I see that there are a couple of other articles on different Imperial hotels through-out the world, whose to say they were not written by a neutral party on behalf of that business? Secondly our article spanned from the start of the Imperial Hotels history and was written to the present time with Queen Street Backpackers, if it was just to promote the business we would have just written only about the backpackers.

So at this point and time what is the best way to move forward from this junction. I know the only reason we have been blocked is because we are related to the business itself written about in both articles Imperial Hotel on Fort Street and Queen Street Backpackers. Apart from the poorly structured article in relation to how it should have been spaced out and with added citation from external sources which we never got a chance to fix, our wiki article was in compliance to your rules. To be honest, if your going to block our account and delete the article about Queen Street Backpackers instead of allowing us to combine it with the article we wrote about in The Imperial Hotel, then we would like to request that both articles come down so we can have a local university history student combine them both and add extra citations and pictures which we never got a chance to do from the outset.

We look forward to your reply.

Queenstreetbackpackers (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Imperial Hotel, Auckland, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.historic.org.nz/TheRegister/RegisterSearch/RegisterResults.aspx?RID=4593&m=advanced, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Imperial Hotel, Auckland saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Elizium23 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we request deletion of the both articles in Question?

[edit]

Hi,

In light of being banned and not being given the chance to be unbanned and being able to edit and make our articles compliant with Wiki T&C, how can we request that both articles be deleted from Wikipeida so we can resubmit them in line with Wikipedias Terms and Conditions?

We were given the chance to re-write one of the articles by Elizium23 and provide evidence of being given permission to use copyrighted material but as our account is blocked can't see how we can do so. We can submit permission but that's all.

We like to have the articles removed from Wikipedia, rewritten, permissions provided and submit them again. Please tell us how to proceed.

Thanks Queenstreetbackpackers (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tag the articles on your behalf. However, I don't see a problem with the Imperial Hotel article remaining, and the QSB article being merged with it, and the result being subsequently improved, so I'll let someone else make the call on the deletion.-gadfium 04:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the previous admins suggestion, I am merging the article. I see the copyvio in the hotel article has been removed by another editor, and I am rewriting it a little myself to decrease the remaining promotional tone.

Please do not be discouraged. As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of the organization wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If there are things that need adding, add them, but the most useful things to add are: First, additional sources, including referencing to specific paragraphs so the reader can know where in the general works you list the information can be found. Second, a properly licensed picture of the building. The messages above tell how to do it.

But, as mentioned above, employ another user name. And I urge you to contribute to our other articles about things you know about. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable

[edit]

We're trying to get into line with Wikipedias policies and keep hitting a road block. We agreed that we would combine both articles, we've been provided permission to use the areas of the article which are subject to copyright laws and don't wish to purchase copy's of the pictures from our local library to post on the article as we're currently blocked. We have pictures of the building nowadays but once again can't post them due to being blocked.

From what I can tell, the only way we're going to be able to amend the article is have it deleted and re-written and posted with all information hopefully being in line with Wiki's policies.

Queenstreetbackpackers (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still in Limobo

[edit]

Hi,

We're still waiting to hear when both articles will be deleted so we can combine both the Imperial Hotel and Queen Street Backpackers.

Queenstreetbackpackers (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were merged. I suggest you read DGG's comment above again.-gadfium 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Queenstreetbackpackers&oldid=1222253756"