Jim Kirkpatrick

Welcome

Hello Jim Kirkpatrick and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Български | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Stopzilla, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No conflict of interest here. Incorrect statements about STOPzilla are being listed in the Wikipedia entry, and I am correcting them.

Is3-stopzilla (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Stopzilla, you will be blocked from editing. ADVICE - Cease your edits.--Morenooso (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Stopzilla, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Morenooso (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule on Stopzilla. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.--Morenooso (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have nothing to do with this, so messaging me will accomplish nothing. HalfShadow 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your COI

Please take heed of the advice being given here and that I gave you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. You plainly have a COI, so please discuss your requested changes to the article on its talk page.  – ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your account has been disabled.

Jim, at Wikipedia we have a strict policy regarding accounts that are used to promote or regular articles about companies while being related to that company in real life. In other words, if you work for or are associate with a company that has a Wikipedia article, avoid editing it. We have a policy at this page which illustrates that such accounts are a violation of the username policy, and your edits also contradict guidelines at WP:COI and possibly WP:AUTO.

Normally, you would be free to create another user account, however you will need to request to be unblocked first because you will need to demonstrate to the unblocking admin that you have read the policies that I have linked to above and understood them. I will leave a templated message below this one with a link to how to request an unblock.

Regards, SGGH ^ping! 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The account you created has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SGGH ^ping! 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you've now switched to editing without an account. I wonder if we could all pull back from the brink a little. is3-stopzilla, please just read the linked policies and indicate you've done so, and you'll be unblocked so you can create a new name. Your edits to the article, at least today (all I've looked at) don't seem unreasonable, it's mostly just a username problem combined with a spot of edit warring. Collegiality is going to work better for you than seeing it as a battle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Floquenbeam: Thank you for reviewing my changes before reverting them back. I was frustrated for being accused of reverting, when I felt that the reason for my changes was not being reviewed, and the comments themselves were not well founded.

I have no problem with changing my username, and was unaware of the policy when I made it.

I am now aware of the WP:COI policy, but who's responsibility is it to remove untrue damaging content about a company, person or entity.

Is3-stopzilla (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's up to every editor but the caveat is you shouldn't because you are affliated with the company. As per another user above, go on the article talkpage and in a calm neutral point of view, list your concerns and what online citations support your view. Most editors will go to bat for you. However, be advised that if detrimental information is properly presented and cited, your observation will not necessarily over-ride it. --Morenooso (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take that under consideration. However, if you look at the talk page, it is full of bile an venom, and did not seem to be a neutral place to have a discussion, let alone settle a dispute about false claims.

Does this policy mean that our competitors or their proxies have a right to edit the content about our product, but we don't?

Is3-stopzilla (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• As far as a new account name is concerned, you have two options; if you wish, I'll unblock this account so you can go to WP:RENAME (the edits you've already made will still be linked to your new account). Or, it appears to me that SGGH blocked you in such a way that you are already "technically" free to create a new account, without having this one unblocked. Now that you've fulfilled SGGH's request, you're "socially/politically" free to do so as well. Whichever you prefer. Actually, so that I don't have to come back, I'm unblocking your account now, but only so that you can request a rename; please don't resume editing articles with this account. Occasionally an unblock won't take; if you get "autoblocked", follow the instructions and an admin will come by to fix it.

  As far as editing the Stopzilla page, Morenooso is correct; we generally favor people with a COI to self-identify (which you have done), and to suggest changes on the article talk page rather than make them yourself. People editing their competitors' pages is a difficult problem to solve; they have a COI too, but will sometimes hide it. If you make a reasonable request on the talk page, reasonable people will evaluate it on its merits, and make the change if it seems best. If you believe your competitors are attacking the page, you have several options available to get a wider group of editors to review the situation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Floquenbeam. I'll have the account name updated to Wiki standards, and will use the talk page to address any false statements about our product. Since you have been such a great help, would you mind if I contact you in the future if I have any issues or questions about how to deal with this, or other entries?

Is3-stopzilla (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to do so; that's why they pay me the big money. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's comment on this page says "Morenooso is correct; we generally favor people with a COI to self-identify (which you have done)". From Wikipedia's related policy, it is quite clear the name was a violation, which seems unfortunate because the self-identification seemed honest/straightforward, and useful. If the person had used an individual login, presumably with the username's page being blank (as this one was prior to recent activity), it would have been less clear to quickly identify true bias. 74.220.242.10 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your CHU request

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your old username

I saw that your old username has been in use again. Please abandon that username and only use Jim Kirkpatrick (talk · contribs) to log in and make edits. The old username is still not appropriate. Jarkeld (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw:

Hello, Jim Kirkpatrick. You have new messages at Jarkeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jarkeld (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)