Morningstarcomm1
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, 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 it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use 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 Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization 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}}below this message box. - 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.
Morningstarcomm1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Decline reason:
If unblocked and granted the name change (seems OK to me), you would be strongly discouraged from editing articles about your company. What other areas would you be interested in editing besides that? Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Morningstarcomm1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Decline reason:
Morningstarcomm1 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was about to unblock - then read the Hallmark business connections article ... what's notable about it that it deserves its own article? The merge suggestion makes far better sense, wouldn't you think in your years of editing experience? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also troubled by the "we" in your first unblock request. Are you the only person using this account, or is it shared? Shared accounts are not allowed on Wikipedia, nor on any Wikimedia project. Blueboy96 14:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay in response. Let me address your questions. First, I think Hallmark Business Connections deserves its own entry, as it is technically a separate entity from Hallmark Cards. After consulting the Hallmark Cards entry, I saw that several other subsidiaries have their own entries and created the HBC entry. I referenced third party sources within the article and stuck to the facts of the company, which I feel falls in line with notability guidelines. Special attention was paid to remaining as neutral as possible. As mentioned, my intent was not to promote, but simply share verifiable information with the Wikipedia community.
- I'm also troubled by the "we" in your first unblock request. Are you the only person using this account, or is it shared? Shared accounts are not allowed on Wikipedia, nor on any Wikimedia project. Blueboy96 14:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, this is not a shared account, and would continue to be my own account should the transition be approved. Morningstarcomm1 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Morningstarcomm1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Decline reason:
- Please accept my apologies for the frustration this issue has caused. Several admins have now contributed, and I never meant for this issue to become as combustible as it appears. My frustration also stems from the fact that we’ve always tried to play by the rules and guidelines Wikipedia sets out regarding COI and promotion. Based on the back-and-forths above, I’m sorry if I have not effectively communicated and would like to address that.
- First, please help me understand why the HBC article is considered promotional. Aside from the fact that I posted it, all the information included in it was factual and verifiable through third party means. Please consult this article from the Kansas City Business Journal related to the launch of the company. While I understand the reasoning behind suggesting the article be merged with the Hallmark Cards entry, HBC is a significant company with more than 300 employees headquartered in a different state from Hallmark Cards. Along with the news references, I think this meets Wikipedia’s stated guidelines as notable. Please help me to understand how to get the Hallmark Business Connections article posted.
- Second, I want to reiterate that this account belongs to me and only me. When I created the account in March of 2008, I did so with a commitment to full disclosure in mind. I’ve tried to engage the community every step of the way when making major edits to articles. I’ve expressed my interest in contributing beyond any organization I have a professional connection to, and would like to continue to help expand Wikipedia as I can. I know that Wikipedia struggles with people providing false information and undue promotion, and I know that reflects poorly on agencies and marketing communications professionals. However, please don’t punish me for what others in my industry have done, and I’ve tried very hard to avoid doing.
- Finally, I would like to ask for clarification on why the Morningstar Communications entry was removed. I’ve consulted other entries similar to this one (Edelman, Fleishman, Trozzolo) and am unclear on the differences. Everything posted to that entry was factual and verifiable. If there are specific questions about content, I’d be more than happy to address them directly.
- Thank you for keeping this dialogue going. Again, I apologize for the frustration this has obviously caused some of you. I assure you that we all want what’s best for Wikipedia, and I’m confident we can move forward effectively. Morningstarcomm1 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry; if you are right that this is a notable company, then it is inevitable that someone who isn't employed to market them will read about them in multiple independent sources, and think they are interesting enough to write about- you won't have to write about a company in which you have a conflict of interest at all. If, as you say, you are only interested in what's good for the encyclopedia, you'll agree that the best thing is for you to do your best writing in articles that aren't related to your own clients, just as the rest of us avoid writing about ourselves and our employers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very reasonable feedback. I appreciate it, and understand your point of view. Again, apologies for the confusion related to this account and the content I've added to date. I'd like your opinion on how best to move forward from this point. I've requested that this account be unblocked and switched to MDD044. Since this is my account, that change eliminates confusion associated with the current username. Above, you'll see what types of articles I am interested in contributing to. I look forward to putting this frustration behind me, and adding valuable, non-controversial information to the encyclopedia. Please let me know if you agree with the course moving forward. Morningstarcomm1 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry; if you are right that this is a notable company, then it is inevitable that someone who isn't employed to market them will read about them in multiple independent sources, and think they are interesting enough to write about- you won't have to write about a company in which you have a conflict of interest at all. If, as you say, you are only interested in what's good for the encyclopedia, you'll agree that the best thing is for you to do your best writing in articles that aren't related to your own clients, just as the rest of us avoid writing about ourselves and our employers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)