User talk:FavAssistant

Welcome
 Hello FavAssistant, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

FavAssistant, good luck, and have fun. – Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Terry Reagan Allvord, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Failure of paid editing disclosure
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for engaging in paid editing without disclosure per the Terms of Use. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Hello FavAssistant. I have blocked your account for failing to provide the mandatory disclosure of paid editing in conformity with the Terms of Use after being told about them, and then making subsequent edits to the article on your client to remove the paid editing notice I placed there. I or anyone else will unblock your account if you state your willingness to immediately provide disclosure (i.e. a statement on your user page). At the Teahouse thread you started, you advised that you were there seeking assistance with regard to changes for an article on behalf of your client, as part of your employment (and that "We hired someone to do all of this and were able to get the page looking just right.") Regardless of whether you only made small grammatical changes, as you offered just before removing the Teahouse thread entirely, your edits have been compensated. The issue is not whether you will seek to make edits "about [your] employer"; the current edits are compensated through your employment, since they are being done on behalf of a client that compensates your company/agency. As provided in the TOU: "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Forget the conflict of interest. Your subsequent post appears to be conflating its strong recommendations, that have no teeth, with the TOU's mandatory disclosure requirements. These are separate issues. Meanwhile, I do not understand the claim in your edit summary upon your removal of the paid editing notice, that "none of the sources for this information had been compensated in any way." This is hard to reconcile with your disclosure at the Teahouse quoted above that you hired someone to make the changes. Regardless, your edits are paid. Again, all you need to do to be unblocked is a statement of intent, and follow-through with disclosure on your user page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to paid contributions without disclosure
User:Fuhghettaboutit FavAssistant (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well there is nothing left to do then delete my account
I have attempted to be the bigger person, I have been honest and genuine. I have read the wiki guidelines on how to behave and how others should behave towards me. I know that I have been treated against the set guidelines and I will have to discuss this with a proper wiki professional. It was never wikipedia's intentions for a new user to be permanently banned for making a mistake. This is especially true when the newcomer has offered to work with the admins to rectify the situation. However despite the fact that I am willing to do what it takes, the admins have continued to decline my request based on imaginary conflicts of interest and their personal feelings which have no basis in Wikipedia's guidelines. The last reason for declining my request actually made me laugh! "In my opinion, this comment is a clear issue of conflict of interest" first of all that isn't even the excuse used to ban me and second that is NOT an acceptable reason to ban someone. Everything about this is obviously personal for the admins. I am done asking that the Wiki rules be followed so how about you all do what you really want to do and delete my account or be a dear and tell me how to delete it. Thanks.
 * We don't delete accounts. Please see WP:DISAPPEAR. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Jamie, according to Wikipedia you also don't permanently ban new users for not understanding the rules and when that new user offers to do whatever is necessary to fix the issue the admins are not supposed to ignore the new user so they can continue to ban them. When I started editing on Wiki I hadn't read all of the rules and fortunately Wiki understands that and therefore made a specific guideline which requires admins to have mercy on new users. I have had the opportunity to read wiki guidelines during my unfair permanent ban and what I have seen clearly shows that I wasn't the only one not following the rules. At least I am willing to correct the issue but based on the fact that I, as newcomer, am still being banned it's obvious that the other party is not. One admin even asked that I provide a list of my intentions for using Wiki and what I wanted to accomplish and on what pages. The purpose being that if I had good intentions, the ban could be removed (in accordance to Wiki guidelines). I complied and wrote my intentions all of which were valid and didn't interfere with any guidelines but before I heard back from that admin, another admin came in and declined my request because of conflicts of interest which wasn't even the reason why I was banned in the first place. All of this has made it very obvious that I have come under a personal attack and no matter how in the right I am, it won't make a difference. I am the moderator for 6 popular G+ communities. We have over 725,000 members combined. I am well aware of how a good page administrator behaves and that's why multiple community owners have sought me out to moderate their pages. If a new member joined one of my communities and broke a rule but after being spoken to had a valid reason for why that rule was broken and agreed to work with me to come to some sort of understanding I would NEVER reward them with a permanent ban. I could give you the contact information for the owners of those G+ communities so that they could verify what I have said and also so you could realize the fact that I do volunteer work on a regular basis including work for the republican party such as in this case. If I had been familiar with the hundreds of random wiki rules, I would have explained all of this instead of saying "for a big client" but at the time I thought it was easier. For that mistake, I have been permanently banned. I broke one "rule" by not being specific about how I knew the subject of a page, after that many rules were broken but not by me. Deleting an account isn't possible because it shouldn't be necessary considering no one should ever be permanently banned for breaking a rule they didn't know existed. However that is exactly what is happening to me. Thank you for providing me with the link. FavAssistant (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)