Pppbach

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Target Corporation. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Please consider contributing to the discussion regarding your edits and any potential conflict of interest here.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Target Corporation, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Because your account was used for promotion of a company, group, product or organization with a username that violated username policy as it promotes (or implies affiliation with) the aforementioned. This includes, but is not limited to: adding spam links, creating promotional pages (this includes user pages), adding advertisements to existing articles, and adding promotional/favorable content about something you are affiliated with.

Use of Wikipedia for promotion of people, products, companies or other groups (even non-commercial or charitable ones) is considered spam and is forbidden. Such actions will result in the blocking of the account involved. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for our policies about this.

In addition, user accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing. Your username should reflect this. Usernames that appear to be promotional (such as those that make reference to a company or product) violate our username policy and are typically blocked to enforce that policy.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

• Add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message box.
• Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Tell us what new username you want to use. Please make sure that your new username does not violate our username policy and check that it has not already been taken (click here to search).
• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If instead you believe that you have been blocked by mistake (i.e., you have not in fact been using Wikipedia for promotional purposes), please write {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message box and replace the text "Your reason here" with the reason why. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Dear Administrator, I am requesting that you review my account and approve it to be unblocked. I am new to using Wikipedia and understand that I unintentionally violated the rule of use with regard to the user name that I selected which was the same as that referenced in a link that I posted. I now understand that this was not appropriate and I apologize for the error on my part. I would like to correct the error and select a new user name of pppbach which I do not believe will cause any issues. I did a search and it does not appear to already be taken. I would like to productively post unbiased news information to Wikipedia and hope that you will accept this sincere apology and give me another chance. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Paul Bach}}

Before an unblock is considered, what kind of edits to you intend to make if unblocked? Given your affiliation and COI, I don't think it would be appropriate for you to edit the Target Corporation article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it's okay for this user to edit the Target Corporation article but (1) those edits should not mention the PAC or link to its website, and (2) the user must be cautious in posting negative information, especially if others object, given the agenda. But some of this user's edits to the Target Corporation page appear to be helpful and well-sourced. Mangojuice^talk 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: This user has already created a sock to add negative article to the Target article again, and as such, should remain blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RLDPAC: can you explain your relationship to User:Fkertai? Mangojuice^talk 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Dear Administrators, Please continue to consider allowing me to edit articles. I would like to point out that I am a first time editor to Wikipedia and while this is a poor excuse I admit that I didn’t take due care in understanding the full rules of engagement pertaining to the posting of edits or additions to articles. I ask to be put on probation for a period of time during which I can be watched. I suspect that I am like many people who may chose to post to Wikipedia in that I am most likely to want to post on topics which I have some level of knowledge and experience. I have spent the last two years watching the Target Corporation and I admit that I have strong opinions about the firm. If I am allow to post going forward it will be my responsibility to keep all posts to factual and verifiable information. In reading the current Target Corporation article it appears that much of the information comes from the Target Corporation website. The Target Corporation article seems to be missing a degree of balance that one might find in an article about a non-commercial entity. A good example of this can be found in the Diversity section of the article. Aside from the one reference to the NAACP this section of the article reads like a page from the human resources department’s literature. I had intended to add a link to an U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit filed this week alleging that Target Corporation failed to make reasonable accommodations for a California employee with cerebral palsy. This news is still missing from the Wikipedia site. http://www.startribune.com/business/54635962.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiacyKUzyaP37D_MDua_eyD5PcOiUr Finally I would like to answer the question regarding my relationship if any with user Fkertai. Despite the assertion that was made Fkertai is not a sockpuppet account. I suspect that this user may be Frank Kertai although I do not know this for certain. I am not Mr. Kertai nor am I Wikipedia member Fkertai. Mr. Kertai is well known as the president of the Heritage Parks Association and is a frequent speaker and writer on the topic of the environmental and economic impact of large retail on small towns. I know Mr. Kertai just as I also know many people on the other side of the debate including a large number of people who work for Target in management, legal and public relations capacities. If allowed to edit and post I will be very careful to keep my opinions in check and only post factual news. Thank you for your continued consideration. Sincerely, Paul Bach, 831-430-9655}}

Rename

You don't need to post on CHU; I've renamed you per your email. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

NFB v. Target Corporation

Thought I would say (to everyone who reads this page) that I changed my mind concerning a previous revert of mine on one of his edits. There is already a whole article on the NFB v. Target Corp. lawsuit, but I am OK with this paragraph being on the article about the defendant because it is only two sentences long. This is applying a solution reached on a previous issue; as long as the paragraph doesn't get any bigger and it links back to the article on the lawsuit, then I have no problem with it being on the defendant's article. Pppbach: Considering I did revert you before, I would've preferred it if you used the WP:BRD cycle and went to the article's talk page. Regards, Tuxide (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)