User talk:Forward Thinkers

Why is this biased mouthpiece for an anti-civil rights group "unblocked"?

What next, the toadies of the National Alliance posting about "Jooish conspirassies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.168.229 (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Having disclosed that you are Director of Communications for CSGV (here), you should be aware of the following Wikipedia policy regarding Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and Desist. you have an obvious conflict of interest, in violation of wikipedia policy. this conflict of interest has been reported. your edits are disruptive and tendentious. organizations have no more right to scrub 'unpleasant' material from their respective articles than they do to add complimentary material. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR rule warning[edit]

Just making sure you are aware of the WP:3RR rule? Yaf (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and forbidden by policies, and also violates our username policy.

However, if you feel that there has been a mistake in your blocking, please appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below or email the administrator who blocked you. Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Please check that your new username has not already been taken by checking this list.

--Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to this - while your username plus behavior was problematic, if you are willing to change to an individual account name and work with some neutral administrators and advisors on editing with a less PR-oriented approach, we should be able to rename your account and let you proceed.

The nature of the problem is essentially that "organizational accounts" are not permitted here. Individual members of the organization are ok, within the conflict of interest policy rules and the rules on not turning Wikipedia into a venue for advocacy or a battleground to fight external political or social fights.

If you're amenable to that let us know what a better account name would be for you. Anything which doesn't imply that the account is an official PR representation for the ogranization is fine - an individual name, or some pseudonym that's not an advocacy position in and of itself, should be fine.

Thank you. 19:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked[edit]

Per a discussion on our administrators' noticeboard I have unblocked your account.

There is a consensus that your account name is a problem - per WP:USERNAME section on Company and group names, this is often found to be a problematic account name type, and in your case given your advocacy editing, you really need to select another new username for your own individual use.

However, we don't believe that the situation required your account to be blocked while it was being fixed.

Please chose a new account name - either some variation on your name, or a pseudonym you'd like to be known as that does not by itself form an advocacy statement. You can edit while you select the new username and we get it changed, but you should select the new name within say the next 24 hrs if you continue editing much. When you have selected the new name, you can request an account name change at Wikipedia:Changing username.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I have changed my user name per your instructions and greatly appreciate your efforts to keep my account active. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I also would like to extend an apology from the Wikipedia user base for the hostile words aimed at you. Sometimes tempers get heated and harsh things written. Hopefully you can feel welcome and will continue to edit at Wikipedia. The blockage of this username is not meant in any way to prohibit or discourage you from editing under a new username. Check out the WP:Help available to bring you up to speed on how things work around here, about our policies, etc.. Your editing help at this encyclopedia is needed and encouraged. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and kind words. I don't worry to much about some of the verbal sparring on here (you should see some of the emails I get!). This Wikipage has been greatly improved and I thank all the editors that played a part in providing a more balanced perspective. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do be aware, though, that due to your past history, any edits you make to gun-related articles are bound to undergo pretty rigid scrutiny. Any appearance of conflict of interest or bias will be come down on like a ton of bricks by our hoplophile editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again with the Firearms topics[edit]

Here we go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=348597527

Removing multiple valid sections to cut the article in length by half, including the removal of various fact ostensibly contrary to Forward Thinkers' CSGV cause, such as this image, which succinctly communicates 30 years of legal history in concealed carry law.

I recommend blocking Foward Thinkers, for a clear pattern of bias, conflict of interest & examples like these showing lack of restraint

Empact (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I would be much less concerned with the edit above if it were broken into much smaller, individually-comprehensible edits, which are each explained/justified via the edit summary.

Empact (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]