User talk:WikiSRW

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Vector Marketing. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/SRWwiki for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.


 * We can't use anything that Vector Marketing says about itself as a reliable source, because Vector Marketing could literally say anything about itself - true or untrue - and we'd then be forced to accept it as fact here. Instead, we rely on independent sources who have no vested interest or apparent bias in the subject. Our policies on neutrality and Conflict of Interest speak to this point as well; an editor dealing with a subject with which they are associated is less likely to post negative information, and may focus on the positive - or, if grudges are involved, the opposite might be true. And then you have people who edit articles about themselves - a whole other category. We avoid these issues by asking people not to edit subjects with which they are involved. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses and I am not trying to be difficult, just very confused about this site. Above it's stated that "We avoid these issues by asking peoople not to edit subjects with which they are invovled.". If people who are invovled with a subject are not able to edit, than that means that only people who are NOT involved can edit - how can that be relied upon as fact if people who don't really know anything about a topic are editing? In my original edits, I cited sources outside of our corporate page and did not attempt to delete any of the information regarding "accusations", I simply went it to correct quantitative information - not opinion, simply fact. How do we ensure that what is posted about the topic be FACT and not fiction if those intimately knowledgeable on the topic are blocked from editing. Additionally, it's stated above as "We can't use anything that Vector Marketing says about itself as a reliable source, because Vector Marketing could literally say anything about itself - true or untrue - and we'd then be forced to accept it as fact here." We could claim the same about those who are posting. While information was cited, sometimes journalists get it wrong. One example is that it states that Vector Marketing is a multi-level direct selling company. This is not correct, based on the definition fo a multi-level organization as stated by the Direct Selling Association (www.directselling411.org). Vector Marketing is a single-level marketing organization. That isn't opinion, that is fact. I'd looking for help on ensuring that the information posted on this site as "fact" in truly factual. As it stands right now, much of it is not. Another example is the explanation of how a representative receives bonus commission if they recommend someone who begins to work with the company. The explanation is NOT correct on the site. It's not an issue of opinion - it's a FACT that the explanation is not correct. Where do I go from here?
 * Fair questions. That's why the criteria for information in Wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability. Yes, a representative from Vector Marketing could indeed create an article with appropriate reliable sources, providing a neutral point of view (NPOV) -- and so could anybody else, if the sources are reliable. We don't get to rely on our personal knowledge of the subject. It's the NPOV issue that's the main problem, and why we frown on "official" contributions from companies and their representatives; in our experience, the temptation to promote rather than inform is overwhelming even for the best-intentioned of "official" contributors. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes total sense. But I abosolutely cited sources, including the Direct Selling Association in my edits. I did not include opinions, I simply corrected fact. In addition, my concern is that, if I'm not allowed to cite the corporation's website b/c of the potential for untruths, why is it exceptable for others to have no restrictions whatsoever on what they cite. I'm sure you are well aware that you could absolute reference an article that is incorrect. The bottom line is, how do I get out of this predicament. I have been blocked from making edits. I do not know why my edits were disqualified anyway, considering I cited everything. I'd appreciate some help in moving forward. All I'd like to do is correct incorrect information - there is information that is blantantly wrong with unreliable sources. We are a long standing member of the Better business Bureau, a member of the Direct Selling Association and the National Association of Colleges and Employers, to name a few. My goals are not simply correct the information that is not correct. Earlier, you commented that I have a vested interest while others posting do not. I think it is probably naive to assume that people posting accusations and incorrect information about the company do not have a vested interest. If someone was not vested in the least, why would they even take the time to create a wikipedia page. I'd like to work with wikipedia to be sure that the information about Vector Marketing is accurate. As a newbie to this site, I hope you will be willing to help me out with some step by step instructions. The first would be - how do I get myself unblocked? Thank you.


 * A point we need to say, if you WORK for Vector Marketing, you CANNOT edit the article. It does not matter. It's a conflict of interest. As for getting unblocked, You will need a different user name and suggest changes on the talk page of the article. Also, I opened a sock puppetry case against you and you were subsequently banned also for avoiding scrutiny on your other account. You are welcome to comeback with a differnt username, but you may not edit Vector Marketing or any Cutco related articles. Phearson (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So basically what you are telling me is that there is nothing I can do about blatant INCORRECT information in the FACTUAL section of this wikipedia site. When I created another account, I was not trying to intentionally AVOID anything - I was trying to figure out this site and trying to figure out how to correct the WRONG statements posted about this company. I encourage you to reserach the Direct Selling Association and to look at Vector Marketing's Corporation page for the facts. If the corporate website can not be used as a site - where do you propose that people get the facts concerning the pay structure. It's amazing to me that anyone can say whatever they want on this site as long as they "verify" it however someone who actually KNOWS THE FACTS is blocked. I am not trying to erase any information nor have I EVER mentioned editing the section on accusations. I think anyone would respect my desire to CORRECT the inaccurate information that is portrayed on this site as fact. It is extremely frustrating. In essence the only people who can comment on any topic on this site are those that no NOTHING about a topic. That makes this a wonderful resource and a sad excuse of an "encycolpedia" as it calls itself. I have been trying to understand the rules, respect the "community" however you have refused to show me the same respect and allow me to be unblocked. I don't understand how this site can continue this way. It's very uspetting. Have a nice weekend.
 * Please read again what people have been telling you: "Once you create an account with a name that satisfies our requirements (as spelled out above), you can suggest your corrections on the article talk pages. You may not edit Wikipedia articles as a representative of the subject of those articles; the community does not welcome that at all." So, no, you're not being told there is nothing you can do; you can do plenty -- you just can't edit articles as a representative of your company. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So this means that I make suggestions and then someone else has to decide if they like it enough to make the correction? I am blocked so until someone unblocks me - I can't do anything. You keep mentioning "requirements as spelled out above" but I do not see any.


 * According to the block log, it looks like you are blocked indefinably. As far as I see, you will need to create a different account and edit as so. But the thing is, because you are a representative of the company of the article you are trying to edit, you cannot as per WP:COI. You may go to the talk page under the new account and suggest changes, and the people watching the article will respond to why/whynot X should/should not be included. Also, remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Phearson (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge:

Phearson - Aren't you the person who blocked me indefinitely? What is the reason for my indefinite block? If I create an addition account, another user will simply accuse me of sockpuppetry. Can you please approve my request for being unblocked so that I can post my corrections on the talk page? Thank you.

I believe I have sufficiently done the following: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead.


 * I did not block you, as I am not an admin. user:Blurpeace is the individual who blocked you for: Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SRWwiki. In order to request another unblock, please see the bottom of the pink box above and follow the instructions there. Alternatively, if you are having trouble, you can ask me or another editor to do so for you, But the reason for requesting an unblock must come from you. Phearson (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)