User talk:Lanakon

Southern States University
Please be aware of various wikipedia policies, particularly those regarding WP:SPAM, and WP:PR. The encyclopedia is neither a blog nor pr for various business concerns. Please fill in edit summaries so editors may understand why you are making a change. The prior version of SSU appeared like an advertisement and was changed to meet encyclopedic standards. If you erase a tag, please explain why you did so. There is only one reference today. There shold be more. If the school is unaccredited, that should be there as well, without removing it because it is "bad pr." If it is true, it goes here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering the extent of your editing problems, and the length of time over which they have happened, I am surprised that you have not had more warnings about it before this. However, you have had warnings and continued with your problematic editing, so you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If, when you do so, you avoid making the kinds of mistakes you have made in the past, you should be able to continue without being blocked again, probably for a longer time. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove the block notice as long as the block is still in force. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do so a third time your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You removed the block notice a third time, after being asked twice not to do so - your Talk page access has now been removed for the remainder of the block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Southern States University, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Southern States University. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Ssusupport for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern States University Wikipedia Page Status
Hello.

This is John Tucker and I am the Chancellor of Southern States University located in San Diego, California. Somehow over the past 4-6 weeks the person designated as the official administrator of the Wikipedia page for our university has been mistakenly reassigned to someone outside the university. Whoever it is has striped off nearly all of the content that accurately reflects SSU and its programs. The page that now identifies SSU on Wikipedia is entirely inaccurate.

How can we rectify this situation and have the person designated as the page administrator be a university official who actually works at SSU? Is there a person in your organization we could possibly speak with to address this situation?

John Tucker Chancellor Southern States University www.ssu.edu 646-704-3161
 * There is no "page administrator"; Wikipedia's content is edited by a vast variety of people. We do not allow companies or organisations to take control of their own pages - this would violate our WP:NPOV policy - and indeed, actively encourage those involved in issues or companies to avoid editing in certain fashions. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth, and your actions involved stripping out a large amount of verified information, despite repeated attempts to communicate with you and despite repeated warnings. This is inappropriate; preventing you from continuing such behaviour is not. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above message from Ironholds was posted while I was drafting the following message, and to a significant extent what I have written duplicates what Ironholds has said. However, since I have written it I may as well post it here, and it may be helpful to you. Unfortunately your message shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article about an organisation or business exists not for that organisation to use to publish its own official account, but rather for an independent account to be given by objective, impartial observers. Far from someone who is associated with the business being considered a more appropriate person to edit the article, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage that person from editing the article at all. Also, an article does not have an "official administrator": all editors have the same status with respect to an article, except editors who have behaved in ways which have necessitated some sort of restriction or block on their editing. If there genuinely are factual inaccuracies in the article and you can cite reliable sources to show that they are inaccuracies then you can post a request for an uninvolved independent editor to assess your claim of inaccuracy and consider whether to make the change you think is required. However, your claim to be concerned only with correcting factual inaccuracies is difficult to accept in light of the history of editing from this account, which has included the posting of unambiguously promotional material, and attempting to suppress information detrimental to the university which is supported by very reliable sources, and which does not appear to be inaccurate at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)