BookClubIntern
User Talk
May 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "BookClubIntern", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because appears to be a role account. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first pages you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that page.
In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Best practices for editors with close associations
- Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
New article creation can be difficult, but the Article Wizard can help you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. You can also ask for help at the TEAHOUSE and on IRC chatAgain, welcome! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources
editI saw your unblock request and wanted to suggest asking about La Voce di New York at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Whether a given source is reliable involves multiple criteria... after all, anyone can create a website and hire people to write for it. And I think asking for community opinion on English Wikipedia would show good faith and also enlighten you, since each Wikipedia site in a specific language has different rules and levels of enforcement. Just because Italian Wikipedia accepts something doesn't mean that English Wikipedia will accept it. Matuko (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I tried to post there, but it seems that it is not possible while I am blocked. Wish I had known about this beforehand, it would have saved me the headache! If they decide to unblock me though, I'll do this. BookClubIntern (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
BookClubIntern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe I should be unblocked because I was protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. The context for my edits follows.
- A single IP editor removed about 40 references to the source La Voce di New York across English Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia. These references were added by a variety of editors over a number of years. The references were removed with the claim that the source is a group blog or that it was being spammed.
- I reviewed the source. It has a named editor-in-chief. It is cited more than 100 times in academic articles listed on Google Scholar. It has more than 300 hits on Muck Rack using Google. Tweaking the search to include both La Voce di New York and New York Times returns several journalists. The two whom I checked, Mark Rotella and Alexander Stille, have their own Wikipedia articles and published articles in La Voce di New York. I felt this was sufficient to reject the "group blog" and spam claims.
- Another editor reverted all of the edits by the IP on Italian Wikipedia. I felt that someone should do the same on English Wikipedia. Was I wrong? I leave that to you to decide. BookClubIntern (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were wrong to do this wholesale without discussion, likely at the reliable sources noticeboard as suggested. Furthermore, "Intern" suggests an association with the website(if you are some sort of intern, making edits related to your internship, you must declare as a paid editor, even if not paid in money). 331dot (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
BookClubIntern (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand now. I should seek consensus first before making any changes. If I am unblocked, I will post a request (open a request? I am not sure of the correct term.) on the reliable sources page to discuss the source. If they agree that it's a reliable source, then I will make the relevant changes. I also understand now that English Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia maintain different policies. That is strange to me, but I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia. With regard to the username, it was an attempt at absurdist humor. The idea was "who would seriously think that I was an intern for a book club?" But I see now that usernames are a very sensitive issue on Wikipedia, so I'll make a request to change my username. I guess it's a good thing that I'm not a comedian! And for clarity I do not have a connection to the source. BookClubIntern (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Hi BCI. I'm satisfied by your (second) unblock request, but am going to stress three points. Please read them, and ask me if you have any questions about them. One: until you have enough general editing experience to make your own source judgements, use RSN (they also have a ready list). Two: last time, you made a whole string of edits, basically pursuing an IP editor's contributions. This puts you in very risky territory - even if your edits turn out to be justified, it's problematic. I advice discussing it with the editor, and if that goes poorly, with a more experienced one. Three: in general, if you have disputes about an article's content, take it that article's talk page, ping the relevant editor, and hash it out rather than by mainspace editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see a problem with this username now that you've explained it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging blocking admin @Deepfriedokra: for some additional discussion. This instance seems to focus on a particular source, with this editor reverting a whole set of otherwise identical changes made by an IP (I'm not aware of any conduct issues between the two, other than this spree). The username query seems a non-starter to me - I've no concerns with it. I'd be inclined to give them several warnings (source judgement, chasing another editor's edits, general dispute handling) and a second chance, given their unblock request. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: Please do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)