User talk:FinancialAnalyst

Please choose another username

The account with this username has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because the name carries an implication of involvement of a major investment company with Wikipedia, and possibly also indicative of a conflict of interest (especially given the subject matter of your postings).

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, or misleading. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. Keep in mind, though, that creating a new account is much faster and easier.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 25 August 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have done nothing to promote my company and having a company name in my username is not prohibited. What guideline have I violated with my username? GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per discussion below, your failure to assume the very good faith you cited in it, and valid concerns about indirect promotional intent and COI in your choice of username. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (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.

Why would this alleged "failure to assume very good faith" have anything to do with my unblock request regarding my username? I think that you failed to assume good faith during your unblock review. GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, SocialPicks, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SocialPicks. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, the article I created conformed to all of the new page guidelines. Your deletion of a valid, referenced article is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to unblock request

I agree you haven't promoted Goldman Sachs. But I am concerned that you are attempting to use the prestige of that firm to promote SocialPicks, which all your edits so far have related to. I certainly see nothing about your username that required immediate blocking. I will undo the block if you agree to two things. (1) I will create a listing at WP:RFCN to discuss your username; this may or may not result in your username being disallowed. I'd like you to agree to abide by the result of that process, whatever it will be. (2) Regarding SocialPicks, I'd like you to agree not to repost the article; your article was deleted because it was a repost of an article that was previously deleted. Instead, if you want to get an article back on this topic, you'll need to read the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SocialPicks; if you think you can address the reasons for deletion in a better article, create a new draft in your userspace (e.g. at a page like User:GoldmanSachsAnalyst/SocialPicks) and then create a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review pointing out your draft and asking the community to reconsider the deletion decision. (I can help you with this process, if it's confusing.) Mango juice^talk 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manojuice -- could you do me a favor and restore the content I created at SocialPicks to User:GoldmanSachsAnalyst/SocialPicks? I would like to continue working on it, but no longer have access to that content. Regards, GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article I created for SocialPicks was entirely original and I had no idea that an article under that name had ever been created before. In fact, I created it because I found SocialPicks mentioned in another article and was surprised that there wasn't an article about it created. I am fine with your first condition, but I cannot agree to your second condition because the article that I created is entirely valid. It was not a repost of the earlier article, and I specifically made sure that I followed all Wikipedia guidelines regarding new articles because I had never created one before. I deliberately found some of the third-party media sites that mention SocialPicks and included them in my article. Also, I don't think that my block regarding my username is in any way related to my future postings and I think it is inappropriate for you to try to get me to agree to some made-up conditions that aren't related to my username. GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to let you know what the proper process is. It's your choice: I've told you what the right thing to do is. Alternately, you can post the article again and have it deleted again, and get blocked again. But I feel like it's my duty to new users to help them avoid unpleasant situations like that. Mango juice^talk 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that NawlinWiki is one of our more senior and respected editors and administrators. If you do feel that articles exist on non-notable companies, you are of course welcome once you are unblocked (under this or another username) to nominate them for deletion as non-notable. As an argument for retention of your own article, this is known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not deemed a valid argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use that as an argument for retention of the article I created, so I am not sure why you are mentioning that. Also, you should know that on Wikipedia users do not "own" articles and I believe there is a rule that you should always assume users mean for the best. GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has articles about some of the company's competitors that have raised no funding yet, so I suspect that NawlinWiki may be involved with one of them." is the passage that concerned me as an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument; and of course the ridiculous accusation against NawlinWiki is itself a violation of the assume good faith and no personal attacks principles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That passage says absolutely nothing about the competitor's articles having anything to do with the validity of the SocialPicks article. Also, it turns out that: 'When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.' GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you have some specific non-notable companies in mind that you feel shouldn't be here, just let me know as a response to this post, and I or some other admins will have another look at them. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of SocialPicks

For your convenience, I've reviewed the previous Articles for Deletion debate on the SocialPicks article. The concern, per the nomination in February 2008, was that the subject was not sufficiently notable for an article, and that there were not enough reliable, substantive sources to establish notability. The consensus was to Delete on that basis. Your task now, in order to post a new article on the subject, would be to show how that has changed. It might be that the company has grown, expanded, or branched out, or that more sources have noticed the company and provided independent coverage that would show notability. Either way, we need sources that document this. Since the article was deleted by AfD, it has to be cleared by Deletion Review before being posted; sorry, that's just policy. If, as you indicate, the subject is notable and can be shown to be notable - I see no objections to its recreation. But we've got steps to the process, and they need to be followed in the absence of overwhelming reasons not to.

As for your username, I do think a change is in order - but a similar name such as GSAnalyst or AnalystGS or some such might be acceptable. The concern, I believe, is that it's possible for readers to see that "Goldman Sachs Analyst" posted some information, and infer that that information carries the weight of a Goldman Sachs analysis to bolster its credibility. You know, and I know, that that's not the case - it's just a good faith edit from a good faith editor (you), but readers and others might not realize that. Thus, the username policy. The fact that the issue with the article and the username popped up at the same time is unfortunate, but it happens. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated the username policy, and I do not think that administrators like OrangeMike should be allowed to make additions to the policy whenever they feel like it and permanently ban users based on those made up policies. GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been permanently banned; you have merely been asked to pick a new username. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I have "merely been asked to pick a new username" then how come whenever I try to edit any page on Wikipedia I am unable to and given this message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from GoldmanSachsAnalyst (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Orangemike for the following reason(s): no reason given This block has been set to expire: indefinite.

GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for the block was provided above, in the yellow block template that begins with the text "The account with this username has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because..." The software has the technical capacity to append a notation to the block log, which would take the place of the "No reason given" message; in this case, Orangemike posted a message to your talk page instead. At this point, you have the option to post a request for unblocking, indicating that you wish to select a new username, and proposing that new username. Your request would use the form {{unblock-un|NEW USERNAME HERE}}. If unblocked in this way, you would then go to Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions there to get a new username. One your username is switched, you will be able to edit as normal. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the specific issue with the Username policy, I believe the relevant portion of the policy reads thus, emphasis mine: "Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual." Again, it's clear that you are a good faith editor making good faith edits, no argument there - but the username concern is valid in this context. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Allowing username change to [[::User:FinancialAnalyst|FinancialAnalyst]] ([[::User talk:FinancialAnalyst|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/FinancialAnalyst|contribs]]). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking.

Request handled by: Mango juice^talk 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as it says above, I've unblocked you so you can request a name change. As for the article draft, I'll be happy to restore it to your userspace once your username has been changed. I'll even restore the old version of the article so you can incorporate anything you find useful. Mango juice^talk 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once I am done editting the version in my userspace, where is it that I go to request that the article be reviewed? GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do, though, be sure to address the issues raised during the prior deletion discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike, since you have vandalized this talk page, banned me from editing Wikipedia without discussing anything with me, deliberately misstated Wikipedia's policy regarding the acceptability of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and generally tried to make things difficult for me here on Wikipedia, I respectfully ask that you not participate in discussions on my talk page. You have acted in a very antagonistic manner towards me in every manner at your disposal. There are other, more professional, administrators who seem to be doing a fine job here. GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Orangemike did no such thing. If you continue to repeat incivil false allegations like that one, I will reinstate your block on an indefinite basis. As for your draft, change your username first. As the template says, you have 24 hours to do this, or you will be reblocked. After that, I will set up a draft for you in your new userspace (otherwise, it would have to be moved anyway.) Once your draft is ready, the place to go is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Mango juice^talk 22:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of lying is extremely rude, especially when everything that I have said is completely true. GoldmanSachsAnalyst (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not lying, you are merely wrong. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia. OrangeMike is innocently and impartially enforcing standards of Wikipedia behavior and I completely endorse every edit he has made to this page, and I also endorse his decision to block you. Anyway, you can now find the draft at User:FinancialAnalyst/SocialPicks; old deleted version you have not been able to look at before are available in the article history. Mango juice^talk 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He deliberately changed the formatting of this talk page in an area that concerned his blocking of me. I think his most outrageous action so far is accusing me of using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS policy as grounds for creating an article, when I had not even done so, and telling me that the policies regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid. When I actually looked at the article I saw that 'When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.' What he told me was the exact opposite of what the article says. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong recommendation

I strongly recommend you take a deep breath and try to start with a new outlook. Orange isn't out to get you. Nawlin isn't working for your competitor. Please assume good faith and be civil on Wikipedia. The next time you don't, you will be indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nawlin isn't working for your competitor" -- when did I ever say that Nawlin works for a competitor of mine? What makes you assume that I work for SocialPicks? I think that what you are implying is extremely inappropriate, and that you should assume good faith and be civil on Wikipedia. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed User:FinancialAnalyst as the content was highly inappropriate. I recommend that you stop and listen to the constructive advice 4 different admins have been trying to give you here. Please stop insisting that you are right and heed the advice. There's a lot of experience here giving you a lot of benefit of the doubt. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I am right, I insist that I am right. The first things that I did when I started editting Wikipedia are create an account and write a much-needed, well-written article. Wikipedia administrators responded by deleting my article and indefinitely blocking my account. I think that the actions speak for themselves. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See Orange's note below. However, the note above, Strong Recommendation is still very appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why I was blocked -- where did I personally attack anyone? FinancialAnalyst (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Combinator

I reverted your edit to that article, which consisted of adding an inappropriate external link to SocialPicks. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was the external link inappropriate? Why did you also remove the other content I added? FinancialAnalyst (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored that item to the list; I removed it by mistake under the false impression that it was spamming, and I hereby apologize in full for doing so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the minor issue that I have been indefinitely blocked for pointing out that edit and others to a Wikipedia administrator. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - it's the way you did it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was wrong with the way I voiced my concerns? FinancialAnalyst (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Orange is "deliberately defacing" your edits, has zero good faith. Both Mango and I have talked about that before. Wikipedia:Civil#Engaging_in_incivility also applies. As I said above, instead of insisting how right you are, listen to what folks are trying to tell you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not allowed to voice concerns to Wikipedia administrators without being indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, then how am I supposed to let them know when problems arise? FinancialAnalyst (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, really. Just comment on the action you question and not the person who did it. For instance, "I think OrangeMike has been deliberately defacing all my edits" is a comment about OrangeMike, while "I think some of OrangeMike's edits that undid mine might have been incorrect" comments on the edits. Assume the person is acting in good faith and try to sort out the actions. Mango juice^talk 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's impossible for me to talk to an administrator about a trend in any one editor's actions? FinancialAnalyst (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not! You would make a complaint at the appropriate sub-board of the Administrators' noticeboard. Any Wikipedia editor (such as yourself) can do so, as it should be. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't do that. Toddst1 unblocked my username, but did not unblock my IP address. So until someone replies to the autounblock e-mail I sent out, I can only edit this talk page. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be un-autoblocked now. Say so if you're not - I'll keep an eye on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still autoblocked. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Checking in to this. Stand by. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now? Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SocialPicks

My username has been unblocked, but my IP address is still blocked. If anyone reads this message, please update Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_26 in the section where Toddst1 states that it is unlikely that I will continue to update the article, since I fully intend to continue my work despite repeated blocks by Wikipedia administrators. Thanks! FinancialAnalyst (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, FinancialAnalyst. 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. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:FinancialAnalyst. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, especially considering WP:AGF. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to comment there - probably important for you to do so, but be sure to stay WP:Civil. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not comment there, since the entire posting is baseless, ludicrous, and flies in the face of WP:AGF and WP:Civil. It is a mystery to me that you would indefinitely block me for bringing a matter to an administrator's attention by calling it a personal attack, and yet encourage this posting. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Guy thinks you might be a sockpuppet of User:Dimension31 who abusively pushed for the inclusion of the SocialPicks article. So if this is not the case, just say so; and feel free to say this is a violation of WP:AGF. Just don't get personal or assume bad faith yourself, and you won't get blocked. Mango juice^talk 01:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but all the same I think the posting is spurious and I wouldn't want to legitimize it by commenting in it. It isn't clear to me why he is so fixated on my user page, when there is nothing in there against Wikipedia policies. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]