User talk:Coxeagle

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All current holders of the CWM Designation received a request from the AAFM to review and edit the Wiki listing so it’s not surprising you may have multiple edits. Personally I don't know the reason for undoing my edits as they follow the accepted format of several other listed Wiki designations. If it is the contention of Wiki that all designations are not qualified to be listed as they are considered SPAM or Marketing then all should be removed. Either an all or none process should therefore be adopted. However if you feel there is value in the public having a greater understanding of the designations and their specialties then it deserves a place in the Wiki. I spent several hours going through the CWM handbook and I updated the information by sections. To summarily undo my work without discussing it is both rude and unprofessional. To block my account is uncalled for. Instead send me a communication through Wiki Talk first if there is a problem. I was attempting to add footnotes to the rewrite I completed when it was blocked by RJC. So the question is I need a Administrator to decide if I continue updating the Wiki post or am I wasting my time.

Coxeagle

It appears RJC has used the fact that I registered for my new Wiki account from my home IP address and then did the edits from my office IP address as some sort of evidence that I am engaging in a guise or ruse to spoof the edits or content of the CWM designation Wiki page. Being new I may not understand completely the operation of the user interface and made some type of mistake, the Wiki interface is not very user friendly. If Wiki has published standards which must be passed to allow a post then they should be clearly stated. From my viewpoint it appears the standards are arbitrary as some designations are allowed and others are not. This also appears its due to the format used. My attempt was to correct the format, add the missing information from the AAFM Handbook and establish a similar submission to the other designations that are listed. Not at adding more SPAM as RJC has asserted. So does RJC have the final say on format, standards setting, and who has the ability to post Wiki edits? If so that should also require a formal decision making body to protect content from being subject to the decisions of one person, who has a clear bias against designations. After spending a day putting together the listing at the request of the AAFM to have all my work lost due to one bias person is highly offensive. coxeagle@yahoo.com, coxeagle@hotmail.com, coxeagle@gmail.com


 * Just so you know, I was not the one to block you. HelloAnnyong did, on the understanding that you are a sockpuppet of a blocked user (see Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw).  It is possible that you are not a sockpuppet (Doctorlaw could not construct an English sentence).  The reason you give for your creating an account would make you a meatpuppet, but the response to meatpuppets is not generally to block them unless they engage in edit warring.  If that is the case, you can ask HelloAnnyong to lift your block. Your block is unrelated to the content of your edits, although they, too, are problematic.  While editing when there is a conflict of interest is not prohibited, it is best to avoid doing so unless you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There were several problems with the edits you made.  Wikipedia does not exist to advertise products, a principle which governs both which articles can be created and what their content can be.  Generally, an article must be notable, which means that it must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject matter.  This does mean that some products, companies, designations, etc. can have articles on them while others cannot; the guideline governing the CWM designation would be WP:PRODUCT.  The article must also be written in a neutral tone, meaning that it should avoid language that puffs up the subject (descriptions culled from the CWM handbook will almost invariably run afoul of this).  Advertisements masquerading as articles are called article spam and are dealt with sternly. By your account, the AAFM asked you to violate this policy, even if you were not aware of this. I hope you understand that some editors associated with the AAFM have behaved very poorly on Wikipedia, so poorly in fact that they have been blocked.  Coming here and violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the same way on the same articles will result in your being associated with them, meaning that even if you act in good faith you might not receive as warm a welcome as you would desire.  If you are interested in remaining with Wikipedia, I would suggest that you explain the situation on HelloAnnyong's talk page and ask to be unblocked.  I also suggest that you avoid following the editing requests of users blocked for abusing their accounts, perhaps staying away from Chartered Wealth Manager (which is on its way to deletion) and American Academy of Financial Management altogether.  RJC  TalkContribs 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, no I had no idea I was doing anything other than attempting to help per the request from AAFM. What is the difference between editing at a request of another or by finding a particular topic by accident? It would appear edits would be encouraged by those who use a designation as they have the greatest knowledge of its actual application. Personally I had no idea of edits by request being prohibited, either due to other persons also editing, or being blocked, nor did I understand the guilt by association. So I will attempt to contact HellowAnnyong to unblock my account. I do however find it is curious that other designations that follow a standardized format are allowed Wiki listing while the CWM because it is relatively new 2005 is not as they use a marketing format. Is there a standard setting body which makes the determination? Is there a time period, number of users, template or other specific measurements? If so, then using those criteria would seem to stop unnecessary time being expended on futile attempts to list on Wiki. Clearly I stepped into the middle of an issue I am clueless about.

Ok I read the WP:PRODUCT and the independent third party and requirments and the rules, and I agree based on this information it doesn't appear the CWM listing as proposed meets the listing requirements.

.


 * Checkuser note: Technically speaking, this account is ❌ to User:Doctorlaw and his socks. Since it appears the main concern here is more one of meatpuppetry, I'll leave it for someone else to review. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

More stuff
Just so you know, we don't use ® and similar symbols on Wiki. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)