User talk:Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit

June 2022
 Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: 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, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must: Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
 * 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.


 * Wise Group Nonprofit Association (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Renamed, courtesy ping to - Cabayi (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember, however, that you should not edit articles about or relating to this organization. Also note that we consider any effort to "write about its contributions" to constitute promotional editing. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I can't see my reply, and I'm unsure if you can see it, but it was based on the Wikipedia page you cited and it was a very lengthy response. Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Using independent, reliable sources to summarize this organization's history and activities is exactly my goal. I intend to utilize the significant coverage received from journalists, papers, and other media publications to write about this organization. Self published sources such as websites created on behalf of the organization will not be used, and the sources I intend to cite are prominent news sources such as CTV News, Saltwire, as well as reports or interviews done by journalists.
 * On the Wikipedia page "reliable sources" it states that, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact".
 * CTV and Saltwire, according to the Wikipedia definition, constitute reliable sources as they are both well established. It's also stated on the reliable sources page that "whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be determined on a case-by-case basis." Context matters, and my account is being shot down by Wikipedia on the basis of an assumption, without knowing the specific content of the news stories I will cite. I don't intend to write an advertisement masquerading as an article, but actual content that is reliably sourced to educate others. On the Wikipedia page "Advertisements masquerading as articles" it also states that "Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website...a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities."
 * As of now, I have not written any actual content to be published but my ban is solely based on the assumptions made on the sources I'll use and the content I will write-though I have stated that independent sources will be used to write a legitimate article for education about a commercial entity, which is encyclopedic in nature. Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to make a fresh unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In my previous unblock request (the second one) I input a similar reason, and it didn't show up, instead reverting to the username discussion. If I were to make another appeal most likely the same thing would occur again. Could you help me with this issue/ provide assistance in making another appeal? I don't want to waste another administrator's time with having the reason be the username again.  Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You may use the second template described in the block notice. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I copy and pasted that template last time, inserted my reason, and then the reason didn't come up, maybe because it was too long? I'll try again, and if my reason doesn't show up again then hopefully the new admin will be able to know why with the chat history. Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See, the text still doesn't come up when I submit an unblock request. Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You should copy-paste the following: (filling in your reasoning). You need to fill it out so that another admin gets notified you are making an unblock request (I'm not an admin). Singularity42 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help Singularity! I saw the edits you made and I think the formatting was difficult because I was using Visual Editor instead of Source Editor. Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a quick thought. It may help if you comment here or below to confirm you have read Conflict of interest and are familiar with it. Singularity42 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that you commit to (a) using WP:AFC for any new article you want to create about the organization, and (b) using edit request on the talk page of an existing article where you want to introduce information that is connected to the organization. Singularity42 (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the Conflict of interest and I'm familiar with it, (I've already disclosed that I am a paid editor on my user page, as per Wikipedia guidelines.) I intend to create articles using WP:AFC  and will disclose my COI on every article and edit I intend to create. I am also aware a COI is a description, and not a determination of bias or integrity.  Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist, I don't know how to use Source so I don't know if this will actually work or not but, I only submitted a second unblock request because you requested that I "revise my unblock request accordingly" which I thought meant posting a new unblock request with the WP:AFC information (which I did.) I didn't know there was a way to edit an unblock request, especially since I relied on the Visual editor. Using Source now though, I see how I could edit my previous unblock request. You basically denied/further blocked me for making the revisions you asked for, as someone new to Wikipedia and uses Visual over source. Also I don't know what to do since I'm new to Wikipedia rules- should I delete my old unblock request (the one you claimed was a duplicate) and leave my new one up? I didn't duplicate requests I just made a new one to include the information you requested. I literally am learning how to navigate Wikipedia and I'm being punished for that?

I fixed the formatting of your unblock request. You can see what I did here which will help you going forward with using Wikipedia templates  Singularity42 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (and Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit), FYI, see this post for an explanation of what's going wrong with the unblock template (it is indeed the visual editor screwing things up): Village pump (technical)/Archive 197. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You're the blocking admin, so I'm pinging you to say that I'm willing to unblock Amanda here if she agrees to refrain from writing about her organization in article space, and instead submit a draft for review through WP:AFC to have it go through the review process. Is that OK with you?

Amanda, WP:AFC is the only venue Wikipedia has for an editor with a conflict of interest to get an article published here. if you also agree, please revise your unblock request accordingly. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist, I don't know how to use Source so I don't know if this will actually work or not but, I only submitted a second unblock request because you requested that I "revise my unblock request accordingly" which I thought meant posting a new unblock request with the WP:AFC information (which I did.) I didn't know there was a way to edit an unblock request, especially since I relied on the Visual editor. Using Source now though, I see how I could edit my previous unblock request. You basically denied/further blocked me for making the revisions you asked for, as someone new to Wikipedia and uses Visual over source..


 * Amanda keeps saying things like "I intend to create articles" and talks about her edits as if we would allow her to create and edit an article about her employer, and possibly other areas of interest to her employer. I fear she still doesn't understand that our attitude towards how a subject wants to be portrayed runs the gamut from benign indifference to deeply suspicious hostility. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've stated above on my talk page that "I intend to create articles using WP: AFC and will disclose my COI on every article I intend to create." This is the process Wikipedia outlined for editors with a COI, such as paid editors, and this process does allow me to create an article about an organization I have a COI with. So I don't understand the sentence "as if we would allow her to create and edit an article about her employer" when Wikipedia has a process outlined specifically for people like me, a process which I have agreed to follow-and I will edit my unblock request with that information accordingly. The Wikipedia page on COI's that I read also states that just because an editor has a COI does not make them biased. The Wikipedia page on promotional material masquerading as articles also states that any article an editor writes that may hint at bias, or promotion for a company, can be edited accordingly to have a neutral tone.
 * My goal is to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia by creating/drafting articles through the WP: AFC and write about an encyclopedic topic in as factual a way as possible using independent sources. So, it has nothing to do with how "a subject wants to be portrayed" seeing that my employer themselves aren't a source for my writing and news outlets such as CTV news are sources for what I plan to write using WP: APC. My employer is also relatively hands off and has trusted me, a teen, to handle all this internet stuff for them while they run their company. Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Anarchronist! Yes, I have agreed to submit all drafts of articles through the WP: AFC on my talk page, as well as disclose any COI on any edits I may create, I'll add that to my unblock request. I appreciate the information, though! Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi JBW, I just wanted to reach out and thank you for giving me a chance as a new user! This is my first time on Wikipedia as an editor and it's been really frustrating because it felt like I was being punished for being new at every turn, or not knowing a certain guideline/tip (like using Source to edit block requests instead of making a new one with Visual.)
 * If editors who honestly disclose their COI and go through all the Wikipedia processes get disparaged like this I feel like that just encourages editors to hide COI's/be secretive about them, so giving them a hard time just ends up accomplishing the opposite effect, instead decreasing Wikipedia's integrity because people think it's easier to edit when they aren't truthful.
 * Thank you again for being a patient admin, I'm sure all the newcomers on Wikipedia definitely appreciate you too! Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Amanda at Wisegroup Nonprofit (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)