Fusionx2222

Help me!

On a page I'm editing, the infobox shows a web site URL. The web site URL is not defined in the infobox. I want to remove the link, because the web site no longer exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Voice_Media

The URL is not defined in the infobox editor or source. I'm pretty stumped!

Fusionx2222 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason the URL wasn't able to be removed was that it was entered as an entry on the Wikidata page for Village Voice Media. I removed the now no longer functioning URL, and the website is now gone from the infobox.

RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I learn more every day from helpful people like you.

Fusionx2222 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It took me some looking to find out where it was to be honest. Template:Infobox_company#Parameters had this as an explanation for the Wikidata link under website: "This parameter overrides the Wikidata link." I saw that and immediately checked the WD link, and there it was.

RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I did look in help, but never thought to inspect the templates. I really appreciate your digging into this.

Fusionx2222 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Sandstein  11:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In particular, after looking at your contributions, it becomes apparent that you are here only to make edits that, while at times superficially neutral, are focused only on making Backpage or persons related to it appear in a better light. This violates WP:NPOV in its aspect as a conduct policy, which requires editors to edit neutrally, and it makes it very likely that you have a conflict of interest with respect to Backpage or related persons because you are paid or employed by them. You have also used misleading edit summaries, as e.g. at [1] where you simply removed information critical of Backpage but wrote in the edit summary "Removed content and added back in chronologically to match the rest of the page, using references with more complete information", and you have employed blatantly non-neutral or promotional language such as at [2] where you inserted the subheaders "Illegal Arrest of Lacey and Larkin" and "Lacey and Larkin Use Judgement $ to Assist AZ Hispanic Community". On the whole, this leads me to believe that you are not here to help write a neutral encyclopedia, but to promote specific private interests. You are consequently blocked from editing.  Sandstein  11:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fusionx2222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I agree with the removal of the word "illegal" and will not challenge that decision. With regards to misleading comments, I only meant to remove the very last sentence of the paragraph and am not sure why the entire paragraph was removed. That last sentence implied an incorrect cause and effect. The correct reasons were added to the page, in a section below, in chronological order. They were added back in a separate edit. I apologize for the promotional speech - it was inadvertent - and I will be much more careful in the future. One note: in your revision, a link to the Reg Manning cartoon was removed - I believe that was inadvertent. Can that be added back in? It's central to the history. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Given the unarguably promotional nature of the edits for which you were blocked, together with your apparent inability to appreciate this point, and the fact that you have been an undisclosed paid editor, I believe that the encyclopedia does not need your input. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:09, 12 January 2017 (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.

You have not addressed the suggestions that "...you are here only to make edits that, while at times superficially neutral, are focused only on making Backpage or persons related to it appear in a better light" and that "...it makes it very likely that you have a conflict of interest with respect to Backpage or related persons because you are paid or employed by them". Please do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If you look back in the history of both the Village Voice Media and Backpage wikipedia pages, you'll see I added much more content to both pages. These were not focused on making them appear in a better light. They are historical. I also added a new page, a very extensive listing of awards received by VVM writers. This was over 100 pages of documentation compiled into several tables. Out of all of the content I've added, the only issues are the word "illegal", one heading that was added, and the removal of an incorrect cause and effect statement. I don't think these accurately reflect an intention to "only on making Backpage or persons related to it appear in a better light".

I was hired to perform edits to the Backpage and VVM pages, and to add the Awards page. I have no interests in the business, and no personal knowledge of the business or it's owners. I have counseled my client numerous times on wording, and have outright rejected content that appeared to be promotional. I fully respect Wikipedia and the standards Wikipedia strives to uphold. Fusionx2222 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, so... an undisclosed paid editing WP:SPA, in the service of a company that appears ethically very questionable at best. We can live very well without those. I strongly recommend against unblocking.  Sandstein  20:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick decisions. I'll recind my request for unblocking and find other work. Fusionx2222 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)