User talk:Saabin23

Welcome[edit]

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Welcome!

Hello, Saabin23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Hello, Saabin23. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Textron, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Saabin, the main problem with the text you have been adding is that it is written in a non-encyclopedic style, and is primarily of a promotional tone. This is not permitted on Wikipedia. Textron companies have their own websites, and WP does link to them in each company article. That is sufficient. If there is information that you believe needs to be conveyed, please present it on the talk page, with sources, andthe editors will consider adding the info to the article in an encyclopedic tone. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Warnings[edit]

Your recent editing history at Textron shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Textron[edit]

Please stop putting in all that WP:SPAM text into this article. It reads like it was written by the Textron marketing department and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Textron already has its own website to tell the world how wonderful the company is, Wikipedia is not that website. This text has now been removed twice by two different editors. As per WP:3RR if you revert it a third time you will be blocked from editing. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the content on the talk page with editors who aren't representing the company and try to find a consensus about what can be included. - Ahunt (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being present only to insert promotional content into specific articles, in a manner that indicates this account is being used by the same user or group of users who have previously engaged in the same behavior on the same articles. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Saabin23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblocking Saabin23 - please see below Saabin23 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your editing has been full of words such as "pioneer", "best", and "lead", has been peppered throughout with marketing speak, such as "serving a diverse and global customer base", and has told us in glowing terms about the qualitiess of the company, such as informing us that it "is not only one of the world's best known multi-industry companies, it is a pioneer of the diversified business model." If you sincerely cannot see that your editing is promotional in character, then you are so blind to the nature of your own writing that it is very unlikely that you will be able to edit in the neutral, dispassionate way that is required for Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dear Brushranger,

Please take into consideration my request to be unblocked and assist me with the issue at hand.

I am having trouble understanding why I have been blocked when the majority of content that was available on the page that was completely incorrect. I am placing factual information that is timely, relevant and speaks to correct information about the company. In addition, each article either has a Wikipedia article associated with it, or a relevant source. I also find it discouraging that there was no evidence of promotional materials being added to this article. If you could point those out, I would appreciate it. In addition, I am a wiki editor, not a marketing or PR department looking for publicity on this page. It is primarily putting factual information that's clear, relevant and pertains to the reader. Why would you have pages out there that have less than factual information on the site? How is this logical?

If Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia" and a knowledge database, why are users feel as though they are turned away from putting factual data and text that is relevant and true information instead of outdated, not factual content? There are thousands of Wikipedia pages out there that have the same issue.

If you could provide some insight, detailed next steps that can be taken, I would appreciate it. I don't believe that setting a "block ban" will really help in your efforts. You could simply point out what is wrong with the articles that are in detail. Any information you could provide would be greatly beneficial.

I would hope you could revert my ban and advise me how I can best edit this page to Wiki's specifications. I am willing to learn how to do this correctly, but not willing to have incorrect information listed on a page that isn't factual. I hope you understand my point of view on this.

Thanks, Saabin.

When I declined your unblock request, I thought it implausible that you were, as you tried to make out, an independent Wikipedia editor, not acting on behalf of the company for marketing purposes, but I decided to give you the benefit of what little doubt there was, and didn't mention it. Since then, however, I have looked more extensively at the past history of the Wikipeedia article about your comapny, and there is no longer any doubt whatsoever. I have rarely seen such a concerted long-term campaign by any business to abuse Wikipedia by posting spam into an article, both anonymously and using one account after another to do so. Such spamming is totally unacceptable, and you may expect any edits you make to be reverted, no matter what account if any you use to make them. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to read Verifiability, not Truth, Conflict of interest, Neutral point of view, and "The Truth". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]