User talk:NotYourAverageRetailer

Welcome!

Hello, NotYourAverageRetailer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Alliance for Main Street Fairness does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dawn Bard (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

September 2014
Hello, I'm Dawn Bard. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Marketplace Fairness Act, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Alliance for Main Street Fairness, you may be blocked from editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Alliance for Main Street Fairness, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at Alliance for Main Street Fairness‎. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why I was blocked and why each time I made an edit, it was considered disruptive. I do not comprehend what it is about my changes that do not meet the criteria/standards. I posted several references with each edit. The current text as it reads, is biased against AMSF, whereas the text in my edits describes exactly what AMSF is. What can I do to create an edit that would meet the correct qualifications so that it is not reverted; as well as appealing the block. It was never my intention to be disruptive and I do not completely understand the editing process fully.NotYourAverageRetailer (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi NotYourAverageRetailer. I know our initial "notice" templates can be pretty opaque about what the problem actually is, so here's some more explanation on why your edit(s) have been undone. Per our Conflict-of-interest policy, while you are not prohibited from editing the article of a topic that financially benefits you, you are very strongly discouraged from doing so, for exactly the reason you've run into here: an article subject's notion of what constitutes neutral, encyclopedic content is often heavily at odds with an encyclopedia's notion of what constitutes neutral, encyclopedic content. Honestly, writing an appropriate Wikipedia article is really quite difficult because of the standards Wikipedia requires of them. We simply don't recommend doing it unless you are already well-versed in our policies and capable of operating from a neutral distance from the topic (i.e. your boss hasn't sent you to write "a better biography of our group" or something else that your livelihood depends on). For example: Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, and a neutral point of view does not make statements about how great a person or group is, or how they're better than other people or things, or how they're going to "level the playing field" and save the world. The writers here at Wikipedia write facts, not PR, spin, opinions, or impressions. We wouldn't let someone write an article about the AMSF saying "AMSF is just horrible, terrible, no good, and very bad", because that would be negative spin (you'll note editors have been busy removing content along those lines from the articles as well); similarly, we can't let you write an article about how the article subject is the best ever, because that's positive spin. If you're not sure how what you were writing was "positive spin", that's a very, very big flashing sign that you should not be trying to edit an article on the topic because you lack the necessary neutrality. You're blocked because despite repeated notifications that your content wasn't neutral, you kept trying to shoehorn the same PR spin into the article. If you wish to be unblocked, you're going to have to convince a reviewing administrator (using the unblock template, as explained in the notice above) that you now do understand what neutral writing looks like, and that that is all you intend to add to the encyclopedia. Not content that moots negative coverage of the AMSF, not content that talks about why people should support the AMSF, not even content about why the AMSF is being supported by other groups: neutral, facts-only content. Frankly, given your history, I suspect your best route back to editing would be to promise to not edit the relevant articles (Alliance for Main Street Fairness and Marketplace Fairness Act), period. If the topics are notable or their qualities are important, someone who's not set to profit from them will come by to write about them. Wikipedia is interested in editors who are here to build an encyclopedia, not people who are here to push their organization's point of view and have no interest otherwise in writing an encyclopedia. So, what can you do if you're unblocked? Well, assuming the reviewing administrator doesn't require you to stay away from the articles entirely, you can certainly correct factual inaccuracies in the articles (the wrong birth year, wrong name, whatever) as long as you conspicuously disclose that you are doing it as a paid advocate of the article subject (see the Wikimedia Terms of Service - bottom of that section, regarding paid editing - for exactly what type of disclosure, where, is required of you). If you want larger changes made to the article, you have a couple of options. You could request them at WP:Paid Editor Help, a noticeboard where people specialize in working with paid editors. Or you could request changes on the article's discussion page, so other editors can evaluate the change and make the edit if it seems right to them. Or you try some of the options listed at this page, including emailing the Volunteer Response Team. I know Wikipedia can be a bewildering place, especially because the way we run things is very different from how most other "social" or "crowdsourced" sites operate. Please read over all the items I've linked in this explanation; each of them will take you to a page explaining the policies I was talking about. I hope this explanation has helped you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)