User talk:IbankingMM

December 2012
Hello, IbankingMM. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! IbankingMM (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have endeavored to make this work conform with your standards. If I have missed the mark on the re-write, I would welcome your comments.

IbankingMM (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions
Hi, I'm Kudpung. IbankingMM, thanks for creating Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You may  wish  to  convert  the naked URS in  the references section in  order to  improve the page display. For more information please see WP:CITE.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exit planning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle market (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Process capital
Hello IbankingMM,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Process capital for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Wikipedical (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Exit planning
Hi there, thanks for letting me know my mistake. You can restore the content which was deleted. Thanks Torreslfchero (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Again, please review WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Could you please respond? --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you've decided to continue promoting your company and it's services. I'm going ahead and reporting your behavior at WP:COIN. I'll let you know when it's ready for your comment. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sir, it is you that is engaging in disruptive editing. If you continue to delete factually correct and useful information you may be blocked from editing.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
The COIN report is here --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Your addition to Platform company has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Brianhe (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to Intellectual capital audit has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to Relational capital has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Brianhe (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to Bankruptcy examiner has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Brianhe (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your reply on my talk page. :WP:COPYPASTE states "Always write the articles in your own words" and cite the source. I suggest you read this guide and WP:CFAQ. I am watching this page and will reply again if necessary. — Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I've fallen in a tiger pit. I am being attacked from all sides, and it is obvious that there is some kind of coordinated effort taking place. I feel all logic and reason has been replaced with spite. How do I get out of this?IbankingMM (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You "get out of this" by reading and following WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY. You should also read WP:CIVIL and stop branding everyone who disagrees with you as a vandal.  Per the concerns of other editors, you might also have a look at WP:SOCK.  My guess is that you're going to be permanently blocked very soon for violation of some combination of these policies.  It's not too late to admit your errors, but you seem more intent on just blaming everybody else for what you've done to yourself.  You have no respect for Wikipedia policies or your fellow Wikipedians.  Users who disrespect policy and fellow users are usually thrown out of here pretty quickly.  Qworty (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't think there's a coordinated effort - there is no cabal. Secondly, the latest collection of copyright concerns was raised because you added large sections of copyrighted text to several Wikipedia articles - that is not acceptable. Wikipedia takes copyright infringement very seriously, and repeatedly adding copyright violations to Wikipedia will get you blocked. Thus the copyright violations were removed, and you were warned not to do so again. In fact, Process capital was deleted because it was a copyright violation, and you just re-created it the next day, again with massive amounts of dubious text that may well have been a copyright violation. That is something you should not do. Getting out of this is rather simple: Avoid adding large swathes of copyrighted text to Wikipedia and instead summarize in your own words what the sources say.


 * Regarding the more general conflict of interest issues that were raised, sources for Wikipedia content should be reliable sources such as news organizations or maybe reputable financial magazines, sources with a reputation for accuracy and with editorial oversight. Company websites such as that of Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions, however, are not considered reliable, and adding multiple links to the same company's website might be seen as an advertisement campaign - linkspam. Compare for example these edits. To avoid such problems in the future, you may want to read our guideline on reliable sources (and if you have a conflict of interest, we have a guideline on that, as well: WP:COI). You may also want to tread lightly in subject areas where your edits might seem promotional - for example, suggest changes on the articles' talk pages instead of editing the article directly. Huon (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am also someone who had a very hard time in my first few months on wikipedia. After looking through some of your edits, you don't strike me as someone who is here to cause trouble. Like most things, Wikipedia has a structure that must be followed when editing. I would take a look at some of those links that Qworty gave you. Try to apply those to your editing. When people confront you on your edits they are not trying to single you out (even though the warning templates can sometimes be a little bit bitey). They are just trying to guide you in the right direction so you can be a productive contributor to Wikipedia. I think you have the potential to be a good editor. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask them on my talk page. I n k a 888  04:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Huon and User talk:Inka 888. Thank you. I genuinely need some impartial guidence right now. Its abundantly clear to me that I have inadvertently stepped on the toes of some editors, and it does indeed feel like I am now being ganged up on.

One of the disconcerting aspects of this is that I've had work deleted without any prior notice that anything was wrong. According to my reading of Wikipedia's rules, that is not the process. Before work is deleted, the writer is supposed to be notified first. To delete material without prior notice is defined as vandalism as I understand Wikipedia's rules. If I am mistaken, it is a mistake in good faith.

Also, the editors are placing labels on articles without adding any detail whatsoever as to the offending wording. As a result, I don't know what to change. The editors gave me no detail or texture as to what the real problem was. As a result, I don't even know where to start in making changes. I feel very much like I am caught between a rock and a hard place.

I will try to learn the nuances of Wikipedia, but the application of some things aren't consistent with my experience in writing articles for academia. The 10% rule is what we lived by. That is, you can use no more than 10% of any article, so long as it is referenced, which I did (I never came close to 10%). The way things are in Wikipedia, the uses of a sentence might be seen by an editor as being copyright infringement. That is not the case.

I apologize for the missteps I have made. Please do give me the benefit of the doubt. I am a serious writer and researcher, with a passion for certain subjects. I feel blessed that I was still working with personal computers came out. I was 48 when I got my first pc in 1992. But Wikipedia is a highly unique community, and there is a disparity of opinions as to the applications of the rules. I will try to adhere as best I know how to these rules. Please do, however, give me the benefit of understanding more precisely what errors I make so that I can learn from them. I need more than just the tags put on articles. I need an explanation at a more granular level what about an edit or article is in error. IbankingMM (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:ARTICLE, WP:CSD. Those might answer some of your questions. I can help you more later when I have more time. Best Regards, Inka is in public (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Can an independent administrator please review the edits and deletions to my work by Qworty? IbankingMM (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't have any work on Wikipedia. Let me repeat it:  No work on Wikipedia is "yours."  Please read WP:OWN, as you seem to have a very bad case of believing that some articles are "yours."  Wikipedia is written by WP:CONSENSUS.  When I change one of "your" edits, I am under no obligation whatsoever to inform you on your talk page that I have done so.  Please see WP:BOLD.  With most articles, the edit histories are so long and tangled that it's impossible to tell who made a particular edit to begin with, and it doesn't matter.  The only exception is that you deserve to be notified when an article you created is up for deletion, or when your name is being mentioned in a noticeboard discussion, or when you have committed an act so egregious that a warning template must be placed on your personal talk page.  (You have already had some of these experiences and I imagine you will eventually have all of them.)  Apart from these circumstances, I am not required to tell you diddle-squat when I change one of "your" edits.  If you want to know why the edit was made, please read the edit summary that I provided.  These are required for everything except minor edits.  Furthermore, because I never formally advised you of a revert, you are now falsely accusing me of "vandalism," in violation of WP:CIVIL, and your behavior is beginning to clumsily border on WP:CANVASS and WP:HOUNDING.  I realize that you are a newbie and I don't want to WP:BITE, but I advise you to drop all personal resentments right now or you aren't going to last long around here.  I recommend that you read WP:DROP and WP:RATSASS.  If you are interested in a long career of editing around here, I advise you to expand your activities beyond the articles you personally created, to give up ownership of them, and to stop being a WP:SPA.  I realize these policies are a lot to swallow at once, and I know you're new, and I do wish you well in your future editing.  You have to realize one important thing:  You're not in the real world anymore.  You're in the Wiki world.  You keep talking about "logic" and "academia" and a bunch of other things that don't apply around here in the ways you think they do.  You'd better start learning how Wikipedia works and forget how the "real" world works, or you won't last around here.  Nobody here was ganging up on you.  It's just that we know the policies and guidelines and you, understandably, do not.  Despite what you may believe at the moment, if you adjust and grow, this will be your final set of interactions with most of the editors commenting here.  You will go on to other issues and, yes, other battles, and meet some of the other thousands of interesting people who've been editing here for years.  Good luck and best wishes to you. Qworty (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed your helpme to an adminhelp template since you specifically want an administrator to review those edits. That person is probably tell you a similar thing to the things that everyone else is telling you. I also highly recomend you read WP:STICK. I will personally tell you that the edits that you make to an article change all the time, the articles on Wikipedia are constantly being edited, the fact that everyone can make edits is one of the most basic concepts on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:5. If you need help you could seek a mentor. I would be willing to do that if you would be open to accepting my help. Inka is in public (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say the the two editors above have pointed out the important points. All I will say is...
 * Note the text under every Save button - your contribution has been given freely, and you have no further control over that edit, should someone want to re-phrase it, or expand/reduce it - so long as they also follow the Wikipedia policies, then that's fine.
 * If you disagree with any subsequent edit (to yours) - the discuss it with the editor - WP:BRD. If subsequently you are unable to come to a consensus, then you may wish to consider dispute resolution or third opinion.


 *  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk). I would like for us to try to work together amicably, please. As to your most recent point, I understand fully that that any work contributed to Wikipedia is the property of Wikipedia. In retrospect, I should have said 'my contributions' rather than 'my work', but 'work product' is the term used in law, and that is the language I am most familiar with. In time I will learn the launguate of Wikipedia, but for now it would be useful to assume that I am in the learning stage. I feel I fully acknowledged my understanding of intellectual property rights in my comments about contributing the schematic of Intellectual Capital to Wikipedia Commons. So, this is not a point of contention and neither should waste time on semantics. I have to believe you agree.

What I ask for is to understand more fully your precise viewpoint on certain of your edits and deletions. How, may I civilly approach you to discuss these points? If I disagree with you, please take it as logical discourse. What protocol do you prefer to resolve our differences in viewpoint in a dry, analytical manner? I do ultimately believe that logic and reason must prevail. Those, of course, are dictated by the rules of engagement as codified here on Wikipedia. But as we all know, two people can read the same thing and come away with different meanings. And this is my point. Let's neither of us presume we have a monopoly and sole possession of the Truth. Both of us are fallible. We will use the English language differently. We have different educations and areas of expertise. These things taken together color our views. Please, work with me. IbankingMM (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I offered above, I would be willing to mentor you. You could ask me any questions that you may have about the project. I n k a 888  22:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Useful articles on contributing to Wikipedia
I wish someone had pointed these out when I first started editing: A broad overview of Wikipedia for new editors | The Missing Manual. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
To be clear, this block is not just about sockpuppetry. It is clear that you are unable to contribute to this site in an unbiased manner, which goes against our tenet of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, you have created sockpuppet accounts to further your position. Finally, you have threatened to stalk another user's actions on this site. All of these are why I have chosen to block your account indefinitely, instead of the typical 1 week block for a first-offense sockpuppetry block. --Rschen7754 07:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo of Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved from my Talk page because I didn't upload it and the article was deleted. --Lexein (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)