User talk:Trinley Dorje

April 2021
Hello, I'm Greyjoy. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Akong Rinpoche. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Grey joy talk 03:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Role usernames/usernames associated with a position or job are not permitted, as usernames may not be shared. Your username must indicate that a single individual is exclusively operating this account(though your real name is not required). You have also not made the required formal declarations described at WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Hi - I see. Sorry, that was an honest mistake. I have a new username to propose...

That would be acceptable as a username, but your username is only one aspect of the issue here. Please review the notice and my post above. An heretofore uninvolved administrator will review your request. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at the guidelines under promotion. I think everything I have said is fair and substantiable. Naturally I'm prepared to discuss this with administrators. Please let me know if the issue has arisen due to specific content, or whether it is a question of tone, and I will act accordingly. Incidentally, I haven't and won't receive any remuneration for these posts. Do I need to declare somewhere?Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You may declare on this page. Note that you don't have to receive specific payment or renumeration for your edits; if you are an employee of the Foundation, you are a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, but in fact I'm not an employee, but a volunteer.Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but please still review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the COI page. Please could you clarify which external relationship is under scrutiny. Neither I (since I am unpaid) nor Akong Rinpoche (since he's dead) have anything to gain through the updating of his site. I noticed it was woefully inadequate previously. There was so much that was absent, so have been trying to improve it. I am aware that I belong to an organisation that Akong founded, but I put it to you, that nobody who is not affiliated to the organisation are likely to have any interest in improving it. Nor are they likely to understand the subject or range of citations available. I believe the view I describe is objective, and the claims substantiated. I have made no attempt to promote the organisations which Akong founded. Therefore I feel the block is unnecessary Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How long does it normally take for these things to be decided?Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators are volunteers who do what they can when they can; please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, sorry - I was just trying to get an idea of how long it might take, but I guess it doesn't really matter.Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you all those who have helped with formatting problems etc. Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

globally renamed Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator to Trinley Dorje
globally renamed Akong Memorial Foundation coordinator to Trinley Dorje -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 03:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I have a new user name, thank you. However, I'm still blocked from editing, and there is a warning about neutrality at the head of the Akong page. Are you able to help with these issues?Trinley Dorje (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The main reason I want the block lifted is so that I'm in a position to protect the page from malicious or misinformed edits.Trinley Dorje (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Received message from Yamla, explaining that I will not be unblocked, which I seem unable to reply to. Anyway, if you see this, I wish to say thank you for informing me of your decision. Here is my response - I do not think it is appropriate to apply the COI rules to people who belong to religious organisations to prevent them from editing on the subject of their religion or the leaders of that religion. I did not promote the organisation to which I belong, or the religion, and have no wish to proselytise (which was in any case prescribed by Buddha). It does seem appropriate to provide a thorough account of one of Buddhism's pioneers in the West. I am concerned that there is a bias amongst Wikipedia administrators in the light of this experience. Please consider this comparison: if I was a season ticket holder of Liverpool Football Club (or even a volunteer helper at the ground), and I wrote an article on Kenny Dalglish, describing him for example as a "great Striker for Liverpool and Scotland", would that get me banned on a COI charge. The page now carries a warning that the material is unreliable, but you will not find anything untrue or deceptive in anything I have written on the page. I would be grateful if you would forward these comments to the relevant person. Thank you.Trinley Dorje (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no person or staff to forward comments to. This is a community project. You are not blocked because you are a Buddhist editing about Buddhism; you are blocked because you represent a foundation and edited about the creator of that foundation, and presumably you or the foundation have an interest in how the founder is portrayed. This is further evidenced by you saying you are here "so that I'm in a position to protect the page from malicious or misinformed edits." If you demonstrate a general understanding of Wikipedia guidelines by editing in other areas, you might later be permitted to indirectly contribute information related to your conflict of interest. You are free to use social media or a website owned by your organization to correct misinformation. You are also free to make another unblock request and attempt to convince another administrator to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this clarification. In actual fact, the Foundation was established to support Akong's monastery in Tibet after his death, and I didn't add any information at all about the monastery, so I feel I have been quite scrupulous. Be that as it may, I will leave the question of my right to edit there. What concerns me more is the banner on the page, which implies that the content is untrustworthy. Presumably that will now remain indefinitely, whether the material is accurate and properly substantiated or not? Or is there a way for that to be removed? Could we get a neutral authority to decide on its accuracy for example?Trinley Dorje (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be reviewed by a volunteer editor. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should I summarise my position again somewhere?Trinley Dorje (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be considered for unblocking, you must make another formal unblock request(as you did before). You may only use this page for that purpose until you are unblocked- but I will say the banner is making no judgements about trustworthiness- Wikipedia should not be blindly trusted anyway, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source- it simply means that the article needs to be reviewed by an independent editor for things like tone and style. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you. Will do. Trinley Dorje (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)