User talk:Isabelle of MeantimePR

June 2018
Hello MeantimePR. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:MeantimePR. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Draft:Tigers Limited. Thank you. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth 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 that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of 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, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MER-C 18:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would add, please understand that Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself, or how it wants to be portrayed(either by itself or its paid representatives). Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage have chosen to write about a subject, that indicates how it meets the relevant notability guidelines]](in this case WP:ORG).  Press releases, staff interviews, and other primary sources are not acceptable for establishing notability. Your draft appeared to be almost entirely sourced to press releases.  This is why it was considered promotional.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a forum to tell the world about a business.  This should be done on the business' own website, or on social media or other alternate forum. If you just want to tell the world about your clients, you will not be unblocked.  If you want to be a general Wikipedia contributor, you will need to proceed as I state above. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you talk for the quick reply. As we are new to Wikipedia, we must have missed a few guidelines and we are more than willing to try and rectify anything that does not comply to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Can you please let us know what the next step would be to get unblocked? We are ready to change our Username and disclose that we are a paid contributor, paid by Tigers Limited, on behalf of whom we have created the draft Tigers Limited. I would like to reiterate that we, by no means, are self-promoting and/or promoting our client. We are simply getting together an encyclopaedic page of information about them. We appreciate your quick revert and your advice on how to proceed and thanks for your patience as we are trying to navigate our way through Wikipedia as a first time editor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeantimePR (talk • contribs)
 * As I stated, you need to follow the instructions in your block notice to properly request a username change. You also keep using "we" and "us".  Accounts cannot be shared or represent a group.  Please select a single individual to use this account. When choosing a username, it does not need to include your real name, but something unique to you that indicates you and only you are using this account. A name in the format of "YourName of MeantimePR" would be acceptable.
 * As I indicates above, an article sourced entirely to press releases is not acceptable. In order to be successful in creating an article about your client, you would need to forget everything you know about it, forget about press releases, and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources; sources that have chosen to write something about your client on their own, without being asked to or merely republishing a press release. This is usually difficult for paid editors to do.  Again, if you are just here to tell the world about your clients, I don't believe you will be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am indeed one individual, it is out of habit using the "we" and "us". I will follow the instructions for the Username change and I will get back to you if I have other questions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeantimePR (talk • contribs)

If you think that the page you created read like a neutral and informative encyclopedia article, rather than a press release, you have been working in marketing for too long. Yunshui 雲 水 13:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

{unblock|Thanks for your reply, if it reads promotional rather than informative, then I can look into editing it of course. Will I be able to input another article for review if unblocked?} Please, one unblock request at a time. Unblock requests aren't for responding to people's comments. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies!

Hello, would it be possible to have a reply to my previous message please?: Thanks for your reply, if it reads promotional rather than informative, then I can look into editing it of course. Will I be able to input another article for review if unblocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelle of MeantimePR (talk • contribs)
 * I apologize for being blunt but you are not going to be permitted to edit about your clients. There is no distinction on Wikipedia between "promotional" and "informative".  Wikipedia is not for merely disseminating information.  I would agree with Yunshui and Yamla above that there is probably too much marketing within you to be able to edit in the neutral fashion required of Wikipedia.  To have any chance of being unblocked, you would need to agree to not edit about your clients at all and tell us what it is you do want to edit in a personal capacity.  From the sounds of things, I would guess that you don't wish to make such an agreement.  Please look into alternative outlets. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello 331dot thanks for your message. I totally understand what you are saying. I did take inspiration on the Wikipedia pages of DHL and Kuehne+Nagel to write up my article about Tigers Limited. The main reason why I wrote it up for Tigers Limited is because English is not their first language and was not meant to be promotional in nature. Is it not possible to disclose as a Paid Editor, and alter the tone of the article if need be?
 * You are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use(as described in WP:PAID) to declare as a paid editor. Regardless, you are not going to be allowed to edit about your brand.  I've told you the choices that you have in this matter above, I have nothing else to add. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

331dot Thank you for your time.