User talk:Ladyrose09

February 2024
Hello Ladyrose09. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged 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:Ladyrose09. 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, do not edit further until you answer this message. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. Going forward, please ensure that you follow the conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, paid editors should not directly create or edit mainspace articles. Instead, suggest edits to the talk page, then add edit COI so that an editor without a COI can review your proposal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we tried the easy way first, and I told you above what you'd need to stop doing. As you then proceeded to return the article to an advertisement right after being advised you shouldn't be directly editing it at all, you are now blocked from editing altogether. Your company will not be permitted to use this article as an advertisement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an advertisement, I just updated the information about MRSGI Ladyrose09 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ladyrose09 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * " All content must be cited from reliable, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking." Not what the boss tells you to write. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I fact check it all. Also, the information is all outdated so I just update it and I didn't get the reason why I am blocked to edit it. Ladyrose09 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling me what part is advertising in my edit and also would you please update the informations. Ladyrose09 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you will stop serial-editing this page, I am trying to do that, but every time you make another edit you are causing an edit conflict. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You placed your unblock request in &lt;nowiki&gt; tags, so no one would ever have seen it. I've fixed it so that it will show up. That said, I'm willing to unblock you myself, if you are willing to, first, agree to follow the conflict of interest policy (primarily, to refrain from directly editing the article and instead suggest changes on its talk page for review by non-COI editors), and secondly, firmly understand that the article will not read the way your company would probably like, nor would anyone need permission from the company to edit it. It certainly will not include a bunch of bolded text and all caps phrases, and it definitely will not include anything to the tune of:
 * "To delight our customers with products and services that give the best value for money in exciting ways


 * M ake our CUSTOMERS happy.


 * E ngage with our COMMUNITIES.


 * T ake Care of our ENVIRONMENT.


 * R eturn for our SHAREHOLDERS.


 * O ur PEOPLE are our partners."


 * ("mission" and "vision" type things are generally marketing fluff which do not belong in articles, articles should never use "our", "delight...customers" is not acceptable phrasing, and the stylizing there is totally inappropriate), or Metro Retail Store is a renowned distributor of high-quality products and a diverse assortment of items from both local and international brands at moderate costs (do not editorialize; use of fluff adjectives such as "renowned", "high-quality", and "diverse" is inappropriate.) An article must stick to neutrally presenting facts verified by reliable and independent sources, and in no way editorialize or "talk up". Do note, for clarity, that the two examples I provided are indeed examples of the issue with your edit, and by no means an exhaustive list of them; more or less the whole thing was inappropriately positive in tone, used inappropriate formatting such as bolding and/or enlarging text, or the like. So, if you are willing to restrict yourself to only making suggestions on the talk page rather than directly editing the article, and to read and understand what we mean by neutrality, I'm willing to unblock you. If not, then I'm afraid you won't be able to continue editing; as per above, your company will not be permitted to use that article as an advertising platform. If you are normally used to writing marketing material, you will need to learn a very different writing style for Wikipedia, as we do not permit marketing at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll agree but can I just rephrase it and still use what I've edit and I'll just suggest it.Ladyrose09 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a waste of people's time. What you wrote was totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and would need to be completely written (and a lot of it omitted entirely). Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just I'll agree to follow the conflict of interest, but can I just update the information? Ladyrose09 (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You would not be permitted to edit the article. Period. You could make suggestions on the talk page, but I would advise starting out small, not with what amounts to essentially a total rewrite. Maybe if you have a source with more up to date facts, you could start with suggesting a change to a sentence based upon that updated information. But since you have a COI, that change would need to be suggested on the talk page, and reviewed by a non-COI editor to make sure it's appropriate, properly sourced, and neutral in tone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't even use the talk to suggest because i'm blocked. But why can't you just update it using the information I gathered and add up a bit. Ladyrose09 (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I ask also, last time I edit it it's okay and no one told me about the advertising things. Ladyrose09 (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So most probably, it can be done by that way? Ladyrose09 (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above, when you make repeated edits without awaiting a response, it makes responding to you quite difficult. I am not inclined to have a long digression about this. You may either accept that your edit was inappropriately promotional and will not be included in the way that it was, and agree that you will stick to only making suggestions on the talk page, or I'll just give this up as a waste of time, but I'm not spending any more on it. Paid editors are expected to not be a time sink, and to figure things out for themselves without needing a lot of hand holding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * okay, i'll just suggest so that other editor can edit. But I can do it because im still blocked. Ladyrose09 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I will give you credit that you did declare as paid (granted, you should've from the beginning, but at least when notified), so some credit for honesty about that. So, I will unblock you per the conditions above (no direct editing of the article, and while not strictly a condition, don't just dump all the stuff you had before on the talk page as a "suggestion"; start out a lot smaller while you're learning how to write articles), but please be aware that if all you do is waste other editors' time by suggesting similar puffery to what you had before, or certainly if you violate the condition of following the COI rules by directly editing the article again, you will be reblocked in pretty short order. Remember to add the edit COI template to the talk page after you've finished your suggestion so that it will be added to the queue of edits for review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ladyrose just did exactly what you said not to.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  00:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I publish it at the talk of mrsgi Ladyrose09 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I sure tried! You violated your unblock condition, so now I've reblocked you, as I told you I would if you did that. If you would like to further appeal, you may read the guide to appealing blocks, but don't ask me as I won't unblock you again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

deletion coming
Do not remove deletion notices or other maintenance tags like you did at Metro Retail Stores Group. You are an admitted paid editor. You can be blocked again for this behavior. Chris Troutman ( talk )  00:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Its just an mistake Ladyrose09 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)