User talk:GlobalNSWP

February 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Cheryl Overs has been reverted. Your edit here to Cheryl Overs was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://plri.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/our-bodies-our-business-1989-reflections-on-a-film/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand are you a person or a bot? I am tired of being told to read guidance that clarifies nothing. What is wrong with a link to an article written in Wordpress by the subject of the entry? All these warnings didn't stop the article being vandalized with obscene rubbish GlobalNSWP (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above post is by a bot that removes what consensus has determined to be inappropriate external links. Blog sites are generally not considered reliable sources as they are user-editable.  331dot (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Your username
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Cheryl Overs, and I noticed that your username, "GlobalNSWP", 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, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack 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, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, 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. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to change username so long as I don't lose the hours of work I have already put in on fixing this article. Please confirm that this will not happen GlobalNSWP (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you change your username by clicking "this form" above, your edit history will be transferred to your new username- but I cannot guarantee that your edits will remain. Those are two different issues.  Before you edit further, please review the conflict of interest policy.   If you are a paid representative of your organization, you will also need to review and comply with the paid editing policy(which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use)  331dot (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Skimming your changes to the article, I don't see anything blatantly problematic- but again, I cannot guarantee anything will remain(which is the case with any edit to any article). 331dot (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not paid, I am not putting in a CV, I have no conflict of interest. I am tired of it being SO SO easy for trolls to vandalise the article but it being SO SO difficult to fix it.GlobalNSWP (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your current username suggests that you have something to do with the organization that Cheryl Overs was the director of, according to her article. It's difficult to see how that is not a conflict of interest.
 * Be careful in using the term 'vandalism', which is a deliberate effort to deface an article. Information that you disagree with or even that may not be appropriate for the article is not vandalism if added in good faith.  Articles on Wikipedia contain both good and bad information about a subject.  Biographies are treated differently but still, something cannot be removed just because it is 'bad' information. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

How is it a conflict of interest if I am a part of the same social movement? Who else but people within a social movement is going to write the history of the pioneers? All of the things listed are properly referenced. How is that a conflict of interest? I did use the word vandalise carefully. Very carefully indeed. PERCHANT FOR BIG BLACK DICK? HIV CARRIER? BIG TITS If those things being added to the page isn't deliberate vandalism I don't know what is. It would be useful if you could help make the page accurate and helped protect women from online abuse rather than policing for conflicts of interestGlobalNSWP (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the fact that you are involved in the same cause as Cheryl Overs, but that you seem to be associated with the organization she founded and led. The reasons this is problematic are explained in the COI policy.  Again, merely being involved in the same cause does not necessarily trigger a COI(unless one is working against a competitor in a business, for example)  Conflicts of interest are taken seriously on Wikipedia, as a neutral point of view is an important principle of Wikipedia.


 * I apologize for not seeing the obvious vandal edits. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't know how to prove that I am not in any way associated with the NSWP. I am not a staff member or a volunteer. I am not in any way involved with it, or its members which are all organisations not individuals. I am so annoyed about my time being wasted by people and bots removing edits that are FACT supported by REFERENCES. I just don't understand why I cant get proper verified info into an article but others can put obscenities. Nor do I see why it is not 'neutral' to list the things that made up this life and work compared to other biographical entries. And I have read the guidelines. of course some people think that defending the rights of sex workers is inherently not neutral. I would love some help but all I get is unhelpful and frankly premature policing while I am editing for the first timeGlobalNSWP (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My intention is not to police anything but to help you avoid problems in the future. I believe what you say, but if you are not associated with the NSWP, why did you use their name as your username?
 * The cause you are involved with is not relevant to me (or most Wikipedia users), only that articles have the proper point of view. I would further add that it often takes users time to learn the ropes of Wikipedia and very few people are immediately successful in writing articles or additions that can last.  It's how Wikipedia works.  If you haven't already, you may want to review some of the introductory informational pages linked to at the top, they may help you.  There are also forums to ask for assistance if you would like it.
 * It is also true that it is easy to vandalize an article(one that is not protected, at least); but it is also easy to remove it.
 * If you feel the recent bot removal was not proper, you can follow the instructions given below to reinstate your edit so that the bot does not remove it. Thanks in advance for putting in a name change request. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I used the name to indicate solidarity and source. I changed the user name as you advised but I can see no evidence of it. I am sorry but I cant see how its 'easy' to remove abuse other than by deleting large sections which leaves the gaps I am trying to fill. Well I give up now. I have done my best and I can't spend days inputting accurate information that is removed for reasons I don't see as reflecting the policies to which you refer. GlobalNSWP (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as you filled out the form and saved it, someone will eventually process the request. Usually it occurs within a few hours.
 * All I can tell you is that if you feel you were correct and policies are not being followed, you need to bring that up in the appropriate forum, starting with on the article talk page and possibly at the Help Desk if you need assistance; if the problem is the bot, visiting the bot's user talk page usually gives instructions on how to correct an error it made. If you don't wish to do so, that's your decision, but it is likely the problem won't be addressed otherwise. Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cheryl Overs has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cheryl Overs was changed by GlobalNSWP (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.861415 on 2017-02-14T14:34:08+00:00.