User talk:LifeInsurancePro

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. Thank you. Mfield (Oi!) 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's a great username. But ...

Here are a few key questions:
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How is 2 Broke Girls Notable? IMDB and the TV Guide already exist. Not to mention the show itself is less than notable... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_2_Broke_Girls_episodes&diff=633317383&oldid=633317031

Secondly, why would I want to invest my time in correcting, adding, or refining areas in which I'm not well versed or interested in? This seems to inherently create a conflict of interest in areas I'm capable of adding to and makes me incapable or adding to areas in which I'm not interested. If the issue is my username, sobeit, pick one for me that you prefer. Wikipedia as a tool has been very helpful over the years and it'd be an honor to assist with it going forward. I feel it to be unrealistic to expect great contributors to have no interests or business experience. If that were the case wikipedia would be completely written by college professors with no real world experience of the topics of conversation.

Lastly, by me selecting my own name, I assume I'm somehow in conflict with Wikipedia's Username policy deemed as LifeInsurancePro (talk)Self Promotion. Which you yourself would need to correct in order to avoid an indefinite blocking violation. Daniel Case

In any event, I await your response.
 * I am sorry that you feel that way. 2 Broke Girls complies with the WP:GNG, so it's notable. We require that everyone not violate WP:COI so that we don't end up with thousands and thousands of pages of biases ad copy. No COI helps ensure WP:NPOV. Individual editors have interests and jobs, yes, but we find other things that interest us and research and write them. Why do you think violates WP:NAME? Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Case is not in question. Am I able to use my personal name as a username or no?
 * You are able to, if you agree to follow the conditions set by Daniel Case and are unblocked. Origamiteis out right now 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree to the the constraints set forth by Daniel Case and his 3 key questions.


 * If someone unblocks you, it will not be me. I posted out standard query about conlfict of interest. You responded by stalking through my edit history to find an edit of mine totally irrelevant to this discussion (Since you wanted to know, any prime time show on a major broadcast network is notable). This does not suggest you'd handle an argument about a content issue with another editor at all well.

You then dug yourself into a deeper hole with this: "[W]hy would I want to invest my time in correcting, adding, or refining areas in which I'm not well versed or interested in? This seems to inherently create a conflict of interest in areas I'm capable of adding to and makes me incapable or adding to areas in which I'm not interested."

Because we want people who are interested in creating, editing and improving encyclopedic articles, not flacks. Really, I can't imagine you're just interested in adding information about what insurance companies Joe Theismann has been a spokesman for. Do you have expertise in life insurance generally? There's a whole category of articles about issues related to it, and it has subcategories on companies that sell it. Certainly there's a few of them that could stand to be improved. Do you have favorite sports teams? A hometown? (And yes, a favorite TV show or shows?) Many of us, regardless of our other interests, edit articles about those subjects at least occasionally, and as long as we don't have a formal connection to them there's no COI issue. Even when there's no interest, articles can still benefit from copy editing and rewriting by someone who knows their way around the English language and our manual of style. So complaining that being excluded from editing subjects you have a conflict in effectively excludes you from editing doesn't hold much water with me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As I'm new to adding to or editing Wikipedia, you'd expect curiosity as to the people you're communicating with. That's NOT Stalking. EVERYTHING is clearly documented with Wikipedia as mentioned in your previous responses. I created this account myself with my personal email. In the course of writing content for an article, I naturally relied on Wikipedia to assist in gathering information about Joe Theismann and I noticed an outdated link. I corrected it and added to the conversation a relevant link. As to your question about the validity of my "expertise" in life insurance, I would say no. No, it is not general, it's specific to life insurance. Stalk me on Google to learn more if you would like. I do have a hometown. I do follow many teams, Redskins being one of them, as well as other activities. Back to the point though, we've established that my initial Username is unusable. I then offered my name as a replacement, followed by my acceptance to follow the rules as reiterated by Origamite. I may be unclear as to what else I must do to "fit" into your rules? If I'm ignorant, teach. Please do not do the same thing to me that you accuse me of doing to you.