User talk:Financial Managers Society, Inc.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Financial Managers Society, Inc.


A tag has been placed on User:Financial Managers Society, Inc., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mean as custard (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block. Peridon (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because we are a non-profit, professional association and we just wanted to establish a presence on Wikipedia. I'm new to all of this, and perhaps misunderstood a rule somewhere. I'm fully aware that the pages are to used as references and not for promotional purposes. I'm happy to fix whatever it is that I need to fix in order to have our page appear on Wikipedia again.

I assure you, we are not looking to use wikipedia to promote or advertise, simply wanted to create a presence for our association on the site. Any guidance you can provide as to what I may do to remedy this would be greatly appreciated. If it is a problem with the user name being Financial Managers Society, I will gladly change that to my personal name. I was unaware that would be an issue when I established the account.

Again, any guidance would be appreciated.
 * Your response shows you do not understand what Wikipedia is all about; organisations are not allowed to "establish a presence on Wikipedia"; if you read some of the links above they may help explain the situation. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be a pain - if I'm doing something wrong, I will gladly cease doing so. Is the issue moreso that I set up a page for our organization on its own behalf? Or was it something that was specifically written? When formatting the page, I used soley historical data that explained what our organization was and the history behind where it came from. I did not write an marketing-related copy or try to "sell" anything on the page. I did hyperlink back to our organization's website, and will gladly remove that if it is an issue.

As a marketer, I completely understand that you must protect the integrity of Wikipedia otherwise you would have everyone and their mother using and updating pages for blatant marketing purposes. I very much value that about Wikipedia and have actually been a past donor to the website for this reason. The very honest reason I was creating this page was because our Board of Directors felt it was important that the Financial Managers Society appear on Wikipedia - like many other organizations/companies of its kind. We were not looking to compete or sell anything. Simply just wanted a venue to explain what our organization is.

(non-admin observation) Here are a few key questions:
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the three important principles above. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because...

I was attempting to establish a page for our organization, the Financial Managers Society, similiar to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_DB2_Users_Group. A short informational page that discusses who Financial Managers Society is and its history. If there is a "proper" way I can go about doing so, I would greatly appreciate your assistance. I absolutely do not want to break any rules. Again, your guidance/assistance would be appreciated.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... Hello again, I'm sorry for attempting to beat a dead horse, however I couldn't help but notice, after further research, that many organizations similiar to The Financial Managers Society currently have pages on Wikipedia that contain similiar information from that which I created on Friday, November 11, 2011. Again, I am not asking you to bend the rules or make an exception for any reason, but please understand my confusion when similiar organizations are able to submit articles, yet an article about the history of the Financial Managers Society is not possible. Some examples of such organizations with similiar content include the following Wikipedia pages:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Union_National_Associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Union_National_Association
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCUA
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bankers_Association
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Community_Bankers_of_America

Our association is very similiar to these organizations, and our entry was similiar as well. Again, I appreciate your policy, but please understand my confusion as to what makes the Financial Managers Society's page submission an exception. The above referenced pages are set up very similiarily to FMS. I'm also very understanding of the "conflict of interest" rule. However, several of the above referenced sites also show no other references than their own websites, and I would assume were written by someone within or close to the organization. If you could please provide further and specific guidance as to what makes the Financial Managers Society in the wrong with what was submitted as an article it would be greatly appreciated. Very kind regards. Looking forward to your response. --Financial Managers Society, Inc. (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (also known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) is not a valid argument for keeping another article. Each article must stand on its own weight, and you now show us that perhaps those other articles should be deleted as well. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick, witty and somewhat offensive responses. I'm not trying to cause trouble at all, and know that you are simply attempting to protect the integrity of your site, but if a rule applies, it should apply to all. I have no stake whatsoever in the aforementioned "other crap that exists" ~ so if your policy is to delete them as well, I fully support it, as it would only be fair and abiding by your own rules.

I would, however, like to kindly suggest that you treat potential contributors with a little more respect. I realize that my technical savvy is not up to par with yours, but I too am just trying to protect and create some integrity for my own organization. I've been nothing but respectful in these exchanges and would expect someone from a fellow non-profit to afford the same in the return. Especially during the year-end appeal process. Financial Managers Society, Inc. (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In what way have our responses been offensive and disrespectful? . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would point out that our responses do not vary with the time of year. They may vary from editor to editor. Some of those articles were created quite a long time ago (in internet terms), and our policies have necessarily tightened up since 2004 (in one case). I would imagine that our patrolling system for checking new articles (and edits in general) is vastly more efficient than it used to be. As to OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that is a genuine link to a policy. We have other policy links with somewhat unusual names, such as WP:DUCK, WP:BEANS and WP:SOCK. One that I don't think has an interesting variant is WP:COI, which I would suggest you have a look at. Also WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As frustrating as it is (for me), I understand that you are simply following and enforcing a policy. One at which, for a reason I believe to be a little on the ridiculous side, I do not meet. I only say that because I have a hard time believing the EVERY article on Wikipedia is written and/or edited by an unbiased source without some sort of conflict of interest per your definition of the phrase. Alas, I'm waving the white flag. You win. :) BUT!!  Apparently I must just sit back an applaud those that bypass this policy of yours through a loophole they've found.  Sigh....  Financial Managers Society, Inc. (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not the case that every Wikipedia article is written by unbiased people without a conflict of interest. However, the fact that some people abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes does not make it all right for others to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward with possible unblock

 * Now that we have dealt with the article and you agree not to violate WP:COI, we're still willing to unblock you in order to choose a new username that meets the requirements, as per your unblock request. Now that you know you cannot create an article about your organization, what kind of articles would you like to work on in the future? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)