User talk:OfficialRollingStone

Conflict of interest
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad account name
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, OfficialRollingStone, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to be a corporate account. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - Via an e-mail exchange, we were advised to create a Wiki account and note that we were making sure all RS.com links pointed to the right place (as a result of our recent site redesign, many of the URLs have changed). Similarly, we would like to make sure that pages for artists on our cover, etc. include links where Wikipedia users can read the stories.OfficialRollingStone (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. In that case, nevermind (in best Gilda Radner voice). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - we are still getting spam warnings. Is there a place to turn those off? OfficialRollingStone (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, who is "Joe Daly" and why should anything he says have relevance here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a trap! It doesn't matter who Delicious carbuncle is or is not a sock of, what counts is if you're editing in good faith. Some editors don't have the best interests in mind and just want to stir trouble. If you aren't doing anything wrong don't fall for trolling posts asking for your name or those you speak with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastes bad actually (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you removed Joe Daly's name but failed to answer my question. Who is Joe Daly? What is his relationship to you and to Wikipedia? I don't mean to press you, but this looks a bit off. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to triple check whether what you are doing is appropriate. Yes, you can fix links that are broken; no, you may not add links to Rolling Stone where none previously exist. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * 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 you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block. TN X Man 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your response is understood, but isn't it in Wikipedia's interest to have these links corrected? What would you recommend as the best course of action - both as a username that will not result in being banned and a process by which to update these links? —This comment is unsigned by OfficialRollingStone (talk) • (contribs) without signing their name using four tildes ( ~ ). Please sign your posts!
 * To answer those points...
 * Pick a username that refers to just one person and does not reflect any organisation. To be used only by that one person, anyone else can create their own account for themselves.
 * If there is a page that is incorrect, and you do have a COI, then it's maybe best to suggest your changes on the Article's talk page - if others are in agreement or it's unopposed after a reasonable time then make the changes. If there is a WikiProject that covers that Article or set of Articles, then you can also discuss changes on the Project's talk page - which will probably attract more readers.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We've no problem with the technical edits (correcting existing links to match the new site layout). However, you may not add Rolling Stone links to articles that don't already have them. --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In prior e-mail correspondence with Wikipedia volunteers it was suggested that we should create an official account and clearly state that our purpose was to make sure all links pointing to RS were correct (hence this approach). Is this suggestion invalid? If we are going in with an alternate user name for one specific person, are there steps we can take to ensure that we will not also be blocked due to the number of these changes that need to be made (they are easily in the thousands)? We will refrain from adding additional RS links to stories that did not previously have them, as the honest intent of this user name is to ensure that all of the now-incorrect paths entered by users over the years are redirected to their correct URLs. OfficialRollingStone (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Slightly off topic, but Re: "We will refrain from adding additional RS links..." - you are welcome to offer concise article improvements (such as relevant and appropriate citation sources) in an article's Talk page, when logged in as an individual user who has declared an interest, per Conflict_of_interest. --Lexein (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) )
 * We cannot see whatever e-mails you have received. We can only point you to the Username Policy - it is quite explicit that names cannot represent an organisation. As for your second point, the "Edit Summary" is your friend! - a good comment here as to why the link is changing will assist others in not assuming vandalism (a blank summary draws attention to itself)- most browsers will "remember" the summaries you use, so one you have typed it once, then next time just typing the first letter will allow you to pick it from the drop down box that appears (only works if you edit the whole page, not a section - as the section name then becomes part of the edit summary). All we need now from you is a new  with a innocent user name, and a promise that it will used by only that single person. Others in you organisation are allowed to create their own private (no controversial) usernames when they so desire - then you can have more than one person editing at once should you desire - but they must all follow your agreed criteria above.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of order re: "You need to supply a new user name that does not relate to your editing.":
 * 1. Did you mean "prior or intended future editing" as in "IBeFixingLinks"?
 * 2. Did you mean "that does not relate to your employer " - that the words Rolling or Stone cannot appear anywhere in the name, as in "FakeNameStoneRolling"?
 * 3. What about the initials RS or ORS as in "IamFakeNameRS" or worst of all "DavesNotHereFixingRSLinks"?
 * 4. Isn't there a BOT to which RollingStone-link-fix rules can be added?  ::::::::--Lexein (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Link changing recipes & Rolling Stone policy
--Lexein (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you post here the URL-replacement rules needed to consistently fix RS links (such as "replace http://www.rollingstone.com/news/* with (...)"? That way other editors can just fix links at will.
 * 2) How does this "fixing links to RollingStone webserver" jibe with RollingStone's apparent new policy of requiring a subscription to access archive contents? If there's an article anywhere describing the policy changes, please post a link.
 * 3) Are the new links going to be faced with a paywall?