User talk:Socialmedium

Please discsuss before just undoing a revision[edit]

in your undo of my edit to the Institute for learning page at 11:06, 23 August 2011 you are asking for further citations regarding numbers - what exactly do you mean, the data is all cited in the entry.

86.144.56.91 (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used, as a supposed reference, an article from TES FE Focus making no mention of or reference to the numbers quoted or numbers taking part in the boycott. It was, therefore, a void citation. Socialmedium (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It made clear reference to the number of people who had paid - the corollary of this is the number of people boycotting - choosing not to pay - this isn't complex.

109.157.109.140 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is creating a user id rather than contributing across a range of multi-routed ip addresses - covering something up are we? Socialmedium (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to hide then I would do a much better job of it that that - my internet connection reassigns a new IP every time I log on, it's not intentional, I can't convince my browser to save the log in so often don't bother, as it's not required - it's not as if you are using your own name anyway is it.

Sonicslice (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting reply Sonicslice (talk), so you are the individual making the odd alteration to the entry using a range of ip addresses. I'll leave others to judge why you choose to not log in when you make these changes. Though I will grant you the fact that you are not doing a very good job of hiding your identity, indeed a quick google of Sonicslice (talk) now means your 'interest' in this Wiki page makes absolute sense. Socialmedium (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the anon edits are made by me, and the suggestion that they are is pretty ridiculous - many of them are simply not my style, I'd much prefer to do things properly - add citations where they are requested, even if someone just comes along and reverts the edit because the citations don't fit their narrative of the situation.

My interest in this page has been obvious from the start, it was noted by a previous 'guardian' of the wiki page - John D'purbrook - I'm someone who is disgruntled at the IfL, more so because I wanted it to be a worthhile organisation, something which now seems completely impossible in light of the actions of a small number of people involved with it.

You seem to assume that I'm trying to hide my identity, which, unlike you, I'm not.

Sonicslice (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page editing[edit]

I'm curious to know if you sought permission from the relevant users before erasing large chunks of article talk on this page. I ask because there are clear guidelines stating that a user should not usually alter or erase the comments other users even on their own talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments

Tlozinski 17:43, 26 August 2011 (GMT)

It is my talk page and the 'guidelines' (please note, guidelines are not rules) are for article talk pages, not individual discussion spaces. This is quite clear. I deleted wholesale cutting and pasting of text into this talk page which, in my opinion, was conducted in an agressive manner. Socialmedium (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion notwithstanding. The 'guidelines' as you seem to take your own opinion of clearly state the following:

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request."

The word NEVER is not generally open to opinionated interpretation. For the record, no aggression is intended. Drawing attention to your own, in my opinion, unreasonably and unruly behaviour is merely a by-product of simultaneously drawing attention to the rules.

Tlozinski 22:30, 28 August 2011 (GMT)

You seem to be excluding ALL of the stated exceptions from your point, including (importantly):

"Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it."

Shall we leave it there?

Socialmedium (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith[edit]

Please assume good faith, reverting and calling other peoples edits vandalism is not very helpful or collaborative you can take any concerns you have to the talk page.Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that repeatedly removing a reference that is valid but oppositional to the view held by a vested interest is vandalism, would you not agree - particularly when the edit is made by persons unknown? Socialmedium (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Socialmedium) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because http://www.socialmedium.co.uk. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how my username can violate the username policy. If you could spell out for me the exact reasons for your conclusion then I would be happy to consider it. Socialmedium (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a "promotional username used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia"ie.http://www.socialmedium.co.uk Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state the policy:

Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted.

Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked.

Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

I have not engaged in "inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product". I do not, as you claim, have a "promotional username used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia". If you can provide any evidence to support this claim I would happily reconsider, but for the moment I conclude that your complaint is made in error. I imagine, given the diversity of the internet, that there are many web urls in common with wiki usernames, indeed there is a 'teapotgeorge' trading via ebay. I do not know of any company called 'Social Medium' - though I am sure there are likely to be one or more somewhere in the world. A quick search reveal 'socialmedium' with .com, .co.uk, .nl, .au, etc domains. My user name is a play on 'social media', that is to say one engaging in social media is a 'socialmedium'. Clearly I am not alone nor original in coming to this name, but nor am I in breach of any wiki terms. Socialmedium (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better if you changed your username though, because otherwise you could be connected with this http://www.socialmedium.co.uk/blog/about/ "a social business consultant, working with various businesses to develop varying aspects of their business by employing social technologies and open methodologies." RegardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 10:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help it if you make an association in error, I can only tell you you are wrong. Socialmedium (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, read the blog. I can see why you have made the association, but I can assure you I am not in any way connected as you can probably tell from the fact I have not promoted this site anywhere. Socialmedium (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Suspected attempt at outing by Socialmedium. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 5 December 2013 (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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]