User talk:MarlboroCollege

Marlboro College article edits
There is a link at the bottom of this page saying Marlboro College Historical Society that goes to a website called Student Loan Justice. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Marlboro College. Shouldn't that be designated as vandalism and deleted?

-CL MarlboroCollege (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Just for your information, if you (the person/s using this account to edit Wikipedia) are affiliated with the college in any official way (especially if you work in Mather or Admissions), you may be creating a conflict of interest when you alter the Marlboro College article. Please consult the Help page for answers to any questions, or feel free to ask me on my Talk page. Jaybird vt (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if I'm responding correctly, but yes, I am the pr director for the college. We wanted to update our list of alumni. I'd also like to correct the name of our college president, Ellen McCulloch-Lovell, which is currently a thinly-veiled vulgarism. I could not find a way to edit that box, however. Please respond ASAP. Thanks.

Chris Lenois 802-251-7644 MarlboroCollege (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Chris,

As I'm sure you are aware by now, the principles of Wikipedia strongly discourage the likes of PR directors from editing the articles of institutions they are employed by, regardless of intent. For your information, Jock Sturges IS an alumn of the college, and one of the most notable, if not a little bit controversial. He deserves to be listed in the alumni section. Thank you for your well-intentioned contributions, but please familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipeda before you choose to edit again. Jaybird vt (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Sturges was an honest mistake and I apologize. I must say, however, that if you are going to disallow input about an entity from its members, then I would hope this would necessitate more thorough fact-checking and oversight from Wikipedia. I cannot fathom what the justification might be for disallowing input from me after identifying myself, yet allowing numerous vandalisms of the entry from a single IP address without taking any apparent action to prevent it. If you are assuming responsibility for the content of this entry on the college's behalf, I request that you please contact me with an explanation. MarlboroCollege (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No single individual ever assumes total responsibility for the content of a Wikipedia article. WP is an open-source, collaborative resource of knowledge edited by user around the world. Everyone involved with WP assumes responsibility for the content therein based on their abilities and interests. BUT, where the conflicts of interest come in: if you are being paid by the institution whose article you have undertaken to edit, and especially if you are the official PR director of said institution, you are strongly discouraged from editing that article. It creates a strong conflict of interest. Add to that the fact that you chose as a user name the name of the college itself, and you have not only conflicted your interests, but created a so-called spam user name, a self-promotional identity devoted to advancing one institution's point of view: something strongly discouraged by Wikipedia, above and beyong vandalism. Vandals are annoying and petty and can easily be dealt with via due diligence. What you did, Chris, is much more difficult to detect unless glaring alterations are made, or unless someone else is monitoring the article and notices your changes, like I did. I hope this satisfies you as an explanation. Jaybird vt (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not satisfactory because it implies that an anonymous user has greater latitude for editing content than a user who identifies themselves. Your role as an editor is to check facts and make judgments on what should or should not be part of an entry. You are entitled to your opinion that my contributions reflect a conflict of interest, but those same COI guidelines also hold you accountable for preventing contributions that seek to do damage. The editing history indicates that you have singled me out because I have made it easy to do so, rather than maintain the integrity of the information on this page. MarlboroCollege (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every editor's resposibility on Wikipedia is to contribute constructively to the content of the encyclopedia. Edits are judged on several criteria, but the main criterion used to assess an edit's "value" as it were, is it's constructiveness. Your edits were in fact very constructive, and made in good faith. I commend you for that. As the administrator commented below, based on those facts, you may be able to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as your interests remain unconflicted, i.e. that you refrain from adding biased or self-congradulatory material to the article, and basically stick to the facts. I'm completely certain that you're editing WP in good faith, and I also feel you should continue to do so, as you have a special degree of insight into the values that WP cherishes so dearly: transparency and accountability. All you have to do, is choose a different user name. Easy enough, right? I look forward to seeing your contributions in the future. Jaybird vt (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks jaybird. MarlboroCollege (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to update. I figured out where to edit the president's name and have done so. MarlboroCollege (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Potential username policy violation
Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. A concern has been raised that your user name appears to violate our username policy as it contains the name of a company, group, other organization or a product. While it may not be your intent to do so, these types of usernames are often considered promotional and are thus not permitted. In order to continue editing Wikipedia without interruption, please address the concern using one of the following methods:


 * The simplest method is to create a new account with a username that meets our policy.
 * If you would like to keep your existing edit history connected to your account, you can also request to have your username changed to one that is acceptable.
 * If you believe the concern to be incorrect and can explain how your username meets our policy, you may do so here.

In order to prevent your account from being blocked from further editing, please address this concern as soon as possible. It may also be helpful for you to review our policies regarding advertising and potential conflicts of interest to help avoid further misunderstandings.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Shereth 20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Because your account was used for promotion of a company or organization with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with that company or organization. Wikipedia does not allow any form of spam or other promotion of people, products, companies or other groups (even non-commercial or charitable ones). Using Wikipedia for such purposes will result in the blocking of the account involved. Please read FAQ/Organization and Conflict of interest for our policies about this.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

In addition, user accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing. Your username should reflect this. Usernames that appear to be promotional (such as those that make reference to a company or product) violate our username policy and are typically blocked to enforce that policy.


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text below this message box.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Tell us what new username you want to use. Please make sure that your new username does not violate our username policy and check that it has not already been taken (click here to search).
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If instead you believe that you have been blocked by mistake (i.e., you have not in fact been using Wikipedia for promotional purposes), please write below this message box and replace the text "Your reason here" with the reason why. See also Appealing a block for more information. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

UNBLOCK Deleting Sturges was an honest mistake and I apologize. I must say, however, that if you are going to disallow input about an entity from its members, then I would hope this would necessitate more thorough fact-checking and oversight from Wikipedia. I cannot fathom what the justification might be for disallowing input from me after identifying myself, yet allowing numerous vandalisms of the entry from a single IP address without taking any apparent action to prevent it. If you are assuming responsibility for the content of this entry on the college's behalf, I request that you please contact me with an explanation. 17:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the edits you made to Marlboro College, it does look like they were limited to minor, factual corrections that are well within the scope of what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. While there is most certainly a strong potential for conflicts of interest when you are editing this article, the edit history thus far has avoided going into the realm of COI problems.  As such you should be permitted to contribute to the article, so long as you remain cautious of only making factual, neutral contributions.  That said, your username is still a problem.  If you are willing to change your username to something that meets the requirements of WP:ORGNAME, I would be willing to unblock you so you can file that request and then continue editing Wikipedia.  If you are doing so, please reply with a properly formatted unblock request with  below.  Shereth 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)