User talk:AJwritesaboutsustainability

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, The Ethical Edit. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Greenwashing, and I noticed that your username, "The Ethical Edit", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username. It also appears that your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization, person or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest. You may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets. While user names that are the names of organizations are not permitted, you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Foundation", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you must disclose who is paying you to edit. Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Some advice to help you avoid possible future problems
As I said I would when accepting your unblock request, I am giving some information and advice related to the reasons for the block, in the hope of helping you avoid future problems. This is probably not the best place for a debate on Wikipedia policies, and I have no intention of trying to explain or justify every relevant aspect of policies and guidelines which have been built up over the course of many years, but I will just briefly say that if we didn't have such policies, and instead permitted people to edit in order to promulgate their personal views, we would have to do one or another of two things: (1) allow a free-for-all in which editors with every shade of opinion on social, political, religious, and other issues could continually edit-war against one another to attempt to make articles reflect their respective points of view, or (2) have some kind of committee of elite editors who would decide what point of view Wikipedia would support, and stop anyone from expressing any other view. Neither of those would be beneficial. In any case, whether you or I agree with them or not, our policies and guidelines on the relevant issues are broadly as I have described them, and you need to make sure that you comply with them, as otherwise you are likely to be blocked again, and very likely this time stay blocked. I have unblocked your account, but don't edit to promote your point of view or to publicise issues which you believe are not well enough covered in existing sources, and don't use your own work as a reference. All of those are perfectly good things to do, but in other places, not Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Your editing clearly expressed a point of view, including describing something as "notoriously difficult", and "known for several human rights violations". Known by whom? That is an opinion. Whether something is notorious is a matter of judgement. Wikipedia policy does not allow such expressions of opinions or points of view in articles, and many administrators would for that reason have blocked you without the option of simply continuing to edit under a new user name.
 * 2) One of the reasons for requiring citations to reliable sources in articles is to ensure that editors are not just posting their personal opinions; giving your own web site as a source does not achieve that.
 * 3) It is clear that your intention is to use Wikipedia to campaign on an issue about which you feel strongly. Several things indicate that, such as your saying that you wish to "just like to shar [presumably share?] the Nespresso greenwashing article because [you] think it's incredibly important". Wikipedia does not exist as a service to enable people to share their personal work with the world: on the contrary, Wikipedia policies and guidelines contain several features specifically designed to exclude using Wikipedia to publicise one's own work and one's own opinions, requiring us instead to merely act as channels for passing on independent third party information from sources other than our own work and our own opinions. Likewise, it is contrary to the purpose and ethos of Wikipedia to post material because one personally believes that it is important and should be better known: instead we report things because they have already received significant coverage in reliable sources.