Tiago Justo
March 2020 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Tiago Justo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
After reading the polices kindly cited on your response it seems I have committed a beginners common error in creating material that has been considered spam by you and other wiki editors. This was by no means the purposes of the edits I have previously worked on, and as such I would like to reinforce that. Any references added to the text are and were meant to validate such facts by sources with authorisation to state such facts. Indeed I have not worked on other articles for no particular reasons, although the fact I have worked on charitable projects with MegsMenopause had made it easier to access the press compilation to generate a page that could easily be beneficial for the encyclopaedia, by centralising the most relevant facts sustained by press. So this is valid for both Meg Mathews and MegsMenopause. However I do understand this can be seen as promotion or advertising. So this being the case I understand why the section has also been deleted from Meg Mathews' biography. However Reading thought he policies I see that it is also worth asking other editors wether the topic would be relevant for the encyclopaedia. If so would be great someone writing about this. Meg and MegsMenopause have been providing an enormous noble support to women around the world helping them going through a journey that has a major impact on their lives, since women are not educated about the menopause. And it was simply with this intention the page was written and only after a relevant impact had been achieved in the British society. Everything always supported by the relevant press quotes. I regret that this will have a negative impact on Megs image as I see now her page has a disclaimer saying the page may have been created under monetary compensation, which was not the case. Wikipedia is a great encyclopaedia and is only for the social cause the information of Meg and MegsMenopause have been included. Hopefully other editors will be able to let me know wether this is a relevant topic or not, since half of the world population will be affected by it and each of us should do our parts in supporting women in this difficult journey they unnecessarily go through, and this is only achievable by the right education, conveyed the right way.
Decline reason:
Tell the other employees at your company, and tell your PR company, that we aren't interested in having you continue to violate WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Your actions are totally inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
Again Yamla I am not pursuing to keep violating WP:COI and WP:PROMO. From my previous response I thought it was clear I asked about what other Wiki editors thought about the topic and cause since I understand it is not up to me to write about this topic regardless of how Nobel and how many outsourcing links exists to the topic. But I can see we both struggle with English language, and me particularly with the Wikipedia's editing structure as I didn't mean to request the unblock, but just to reply back to Justlettersandnumbers feedback . So perhaps other editors will be able to advise on this. I just hope that if you are a woman or have a mother, wife or any other women in your life, that eventually when going through the menopause you understand the underlying reason for writing about this topic. Tiago Justo (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect perhaps some feminine advise here would be greatly appreciated BrownHairedGirl and Diannaa as again by no means it was ever an intention to violate WP:COI and WP:PROMO. As a personal financial contributor to the wikipedia project I value everything it stands for, and if we are talking candidly here Yamla, I believe it is really unfair me or any other editors being aggressively labelled of violating WP:COI and WP:PROMO or being victims of shameful replies such as the one sent to Llewop Eidoj. I am pretty sure that those are not the values wikipedia stands for and needs to be addressed differently. It is not simply because there isn't a face to your voice that should enable you to have no guidelines on what to say nor how to say when addressing to other users that genuinely are willing to contribute to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiago Justo (talk • contribs)
- Neither account has truthfully disclosed your conflict of interest. The other account (at least) has actively tried to mislead us about the conflict of interest. Enough. I will not respond further. --Yamla (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for replaying Yamla. I have been made aware of that now and acknowledged that fact, for which once again I have already apologised. In any case, and with all due respect, any information provided was always sustained by reliable sources with no conflict of interests. take careTiago Justo (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Tiago Justo, if you want to be unblocked, you will have to:
- convince us that you understand the reasons for your block, and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked (hint: you will need to clarify your relationship to Genius Brand and the various other parties involved in this mess)
- describe in general terms the contributions that you might wish to make if you are unblocked; you should be aware (if you are not already) that Wikipedia has absolutely no interest whatsoever in advocacy or promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Tiago Justo, if you want to be unblocked, you will have to:
- Thanks for replaying Yamla. I have been made aware of that now and acknowledged that fact, for which once again I have already apologised. In any case, and with all due respect, any information provided was always sustained by reliable sources with no conflict of interests. take careTiago Justo (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)