The reason why my username contain FaxBL is because I am a user of FaxBL and as per Wiki rules, we are not allow to attempt to markething anything, so I don't think having a username such as 'Fax Blacklist' or else would be anything else than worse. For this matter, I want to specify that the site faxbl.org do not sell it's information, but offer a free directory of junk faxer to help the community and provide these information for free. So it is really a ressource of informations, with complains report and such and NOT a marketing site. May you have any questions or comments, feel free to talk with me!
If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I do beleive it is an error because I was NOT trying to promote. I do understand a little better the Organizational FAQ now, but still do not understand why I got blocked and edit removed. Our website is totally about junk fax, whereas, there anothers links similair to us related to junk fax. We are a blacklist directory for junk faxer. I do understand that non-profit website deserve the same treatment, but I do not understand how then I let people known about the ressource that we created on a topic like junk fax without getting blocked (Because we are a free open BL) ? How are we suppose to do that, would you provide an example ? Scenario ? For a first time user please ? I mean, if the conflict of interest here is about owning the site, I will provide several others website which do the same thing and that would be it for the conflict of interest ?
FaxBL (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I would really appreciate if you could help me a bit, with this issue, because like I mentionned before, I am a first time user, so I am pretty lost with the wiki rules or such. I do want to comply to Wiki rules, and do not want to be blacklisted :( That would be ironic for a BL website. Maybe by giving me a scenario of someone like me with a website that is a real ressources for gathering informations on junk fax (or anything else, like email spam) and that it is not a store or anything. How would I add my ressource and informations about it, neutral that is, into Wiki ? Is that possible ? Where/when do I have to excuse to be forgiven for my previous error ?
Best Regards,
- Please take some time to follow and read the helpful links given in your original block notice - see this version of your talk page - this explains in detail the steps you need to follow to appeal your block. You may also find the following links helpful:
- Thanks, Fæ (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Before Appealing, I would like to understand properly how it work. I did read these (as my user history already probably show that, before you wrote this reply), but I do still have difficulty to understand some of the points I have enumerate above. That why I've requested some more *human* help to understand what I can do in my specific situation (not being blocked, but having a ressource link about a topic, owning it, and being see as a conflict of interest while it is not. From what I've read, I've should discuss in the discussion page of the topic about a link before posting it to respect others vote. It would be greatly appreciated if you could please take the time to read what I've wrote, and give me some specific answer or example ?
FaxBL (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, there are two interesting examples I have been involved with recently that you may find helpful to illustrate the guidance material above:
- Talk:Ayako Shirasaki - Nice case - The artist's manager explained their conflict of interest and asked for help. They are actively contributing to the article by recommending additions and corrections on the talk page.
- Talk:Labshare - Heated case - After a dispute involving significant edit warring, independent editors intervened and the article has been locked for a week (only allowing edits from administrators). During investigation several contributing accounts were shown to have direct conflict of interest and received appropriate warnings and a persistent suspected puppet-master is under further investigation for disruption. Those editors previously contributing with COI are now clear on the guidelines and only contributing to the talk page.
- Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)