User talk:Laurieshaw8
May 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Coffee Beanery with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —SMALLJIM 16:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Coffee Beanery with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 16:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|your reason here}} below. —SMALLJIM 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 
Laurieshaw8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Family owned business and franchisees that are suing are putting mistruths on this page with documentation from their court case not actual fact
Decline reason:
Much, if not all, of the content that you repeatedly removed is supported by sources that seem to be reliable. It is clear that your aim is to show the business in a favourable light, not only by suppressing information unfavourable to the business, but also by adding promotional text, such as "Its franchisees are very involved in their communities making them The Coffee People Who Care". That is clearly at best an expression of opinion, and at worst outright marketing prose: there is no way that can be considered as being written from the sort of neutral point of view that is required in an encyclopaedia article. Bwilkins has made you an offer, below, that is probably more generous than many administrators would have done, and it is debatable whether or not the sources cited were, as he suggests, being given undue weight. However, if you are prepared to make another unblock request, indicating acceptance of the conditions he has outlined, then you may be considered for an unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
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.
Some of the material you removed was a bit non-neutral, and could probably have been reworked or edited to comply with our policies - but the problem wasn't that you wanted the material removed. The problem was that you just kept removing it without discussion. There might be perfectly reasonable edits to be made, but no one would know because you did not discuss your reasoning. Your request here raises another question, though - are you affiliated with or editing on behalf of the Coffee Beanery? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Considering that the founders of the company wee "JoAnne and Julius Shaw", I would expect that the answer (based on the name Laurie Shaw) is "yes". Laurie, please be aware of conflict of interest as you edit Wikipedia. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Laurie, as you were blocked for vandalism after only a couple of edits, and I understand that you believe you were doing the "right thing" for a family-owned business, there is a way forward. I would personally consider unblocking you if you are able to show that you fully understand conflict of interest. Even the founder of Wikipedia recently re-stated that those from companies should not edit their articles due to COI. At the same time, you might want to read WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV - I believe that you were trying to remove items from the article that actually were being given undue weight. Although people with COI should typically only edit the talkpage of the article to suggest changes in order to gain wP:CONSENSUS, editors may remove unsourced negative information. It's a grey areas as to whether or not the sources being used were WP:UNDUE, and as such it would have been wiser to follow our dispute resolution processes in order to correct undue/npov issues. If you have a read of the policies I have linked to, and let us know your understanding of them - plus how you'll move forward in the future, a wandering admin (possibly even me) will re-review the information and be able to make a better decision as to the unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)