The Currency Exchange Fund NV
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, The Currency Exchange Fund NV, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. 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. GorillaWarfare talk 13:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Reason for choice of name
editDear Gorilla Warfare, the rational and reasoning behind our name choice is the same as for 'Netherlands Development Finance Company NV' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financieringsmaatschappij_voor_Ontwikkelingslanden_N.V.. We are called a company and must register as a company but we are completely unique and the only organization of this type in the world. If the above organization is allowed unhindered to have a WIKI page, could you please explain why our organization should not be allowed to have one? thanks, The Currency Exchange Fund NV The Currency Exchange Fund NV (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, most of our investors also have WIKI pages. These are all organizations very similar to us of course. Here are some examples: KfW, AFDB, JBIC, and many many others. The Currency Exchange Fund NV (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
A tag has been placed on User:The Currency Exchange Fund NV, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of User:The Currency Exchange Fund NV and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mean as custard (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
July 2010
edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}}. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Currency Exchange Fund NV (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Mitchell, as I have already explained in the text above; The Currency Exchange Fund NV is a unique, one of a kind organization and methodology for hedging cross currency swaps limited to emerging market currencies for global development banks and lenders. This extremely original concept and organization is a multilateral global effort. Also as I already mentioned, most of these global development banks and lenders ALSO have WIKI pages - these are our direct owners and shareholders. Considering that WIKI has allowed nearly all of our investors to have a WIKI page, could you please explain exactly why it appears we cannot? I will take this issue as far as I have to if neccessary. Please provide a clear explanation why the other organizations that are very very similar to us and have nearly the indentical purpose as we do, why these organizations and institutions are permitted to have WIKI pages and we are not? Here is a short list of organizations either nearly identical to us or that are our direct owners that all have WIKI pages: KfW, JBIC, Netherlands Development Finance Company, AFDB, International Finance Corporation, International Monetary Fund, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Please let me know if you need more examples. Looking forward to receiving your explanation and response. Thank you
Decline reason:
The reason this account is blocked, as explained in the block notice, is nothing to do with whether your organisation is notable enough to have an article; it is because Wikipedia accounts have to be for individuals, and under our username policy "role accounts" which represent, or appear to represent, organisations are not allowed.
JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (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.
The Currency Exchange Fund NV (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
John, thank you. I repeat, please clearly explain why ALL of the organizations listed above may have a WIKI page and it appears that now our organization cannot. If you cannot clearly explain this then I will need to esclate the issue. thank you
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblocking provided. The existence of pages for other organizations does not mean you get to insert an article about your organization; as far as we know, KfW is not written by KfW, JBIC is not written by JBIC, etc, etc. Please familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest and neutral point of view policies to understand why. As far as "escalating" the issue is concerned, I'm not sure what you mean, but please make sure you're not verging on legal threats; we're very touchy about that here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (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.
- JP gordon, thank you. So if I understand it correctly after reading the guidelines and conflict of interest guidelines, if a WIKI page is set up by a student or an ordinary individual then there is no longer a conflict of interest and the name may be used? Please, I am not trying to irritate you, and certainly have no intention of making a legal threat. My goal is to have a WIKI page, very much like all of our sister organizations do, without conflict or problems. Could you please inform of my options as far as possibly escalating the question to another level? My idea of escaclation was to have our sister orgainzations write the editors and put pressure on WIKI, since they are all already established on your site - pressure from within the already existing WIKI community. Is this the correct way to do it? Please inform me. thank you.
- There are no "other levels". Wikipedia is a community- and consensus-driven enterprise. If an uninvolved editors (we're all editors here; there's no hierarchy of privilege differentiating "writers" from "editors") feel your organization is worthy of an article, and creates one with adequate verifiability, reliable sourcing, and neutrality, then that article will be created. Organizations and their representatives are pretty much forbidden from writing articles about themselves and are very strongly discouraged from editing articles about themselves; we consider it pretty much impossible for such people to have the necessary neutral point of view about their own organizations. You will not be able to edit with this user name, period; Wikipedia editors are expected to be individuals writing on their own behalf, not on the behalf of organizations. What you can do is start a completely new account, and go through the process of requesting a new article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. It would take the form of "Hi, I'm so-and-so from The Currency Exchange Fund; I think Wikipedia needs an article on this organization, and here are the verifiable reliable sources establishing the basis for such an article." --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
However, if you create a new account as an individual, there is still a problem if you wish to write about your organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business listing directory, still less a vehicle for organizations to promote themselves, and because of the need for a neutral point of view users are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their organizations. You should read these guidelines:
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
- Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest
- The FAQ/Organizations, in particular the sections headed:
JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Supplement - I was preparing a reply, but Jpgordon replied first. Some extra points that might be helpful: it occurs to me that you may be under the impression that International Monetary Fund, for instance, is the user page of a user called "International Monetary Fund". That might explain why we seem to be at cross purposes. International Monetary Fund is not a user page: it is an encyclopedia article. It was not written by, and is not controlled by, a user called "International Monetary Fund" - there is no such user and any account set up with that name would be blocked as yours has been. The revision history of the page shows all the editors who have contributed to it. A user page has a name like User:JohnCD and is for showing as much, or as little, information about the individual user as he chooses. In no sense does an article "belong" to its subject: others can and will edit it and the subject cannot insist on a preferred version. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. This is an important difference between Wikipedia and the sort of company-listing site I think you have in mind. The fact that the companies you mention have Wikipedia articles does not in any sense make them "members" and certainly does not put them in a position to bring "pressure" on Wikipedia - which would in any case be likely to be counter-productive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
John and Jp, this is useful constructive information, the other responses were not. thanks