User talk:Bostonreview
|
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 03:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Question regarding COI/unblocking (cut and pasted from User talk:Orangemike)
[edit]Hi, Orangemike-- I'm the web guy for Boston Review, and I'm writing to inquire about unblocking our account. We got banned a couple months ago, and I wanted to appeal on the promise of better behavior in the future. Our wikipedia editors are typically interns, who're instructed to cite notable articles on WP and play by the rules. This typically results in a flurry of unsupervised editing every few months, which is what I suspect got us the current ban.
Boston Review is a nonprofit, available free online since 1996, and we take our responsibility as a public resource very seriously. In the case of Joseph Carens, we cited his recent 5500 word article in the magazine where he details how his political theory relates to immigration, a major topic of his research and writing. As his entry stands now, there is no other freely available Further Reading resource linked.
Would you consider unblocking our account if I caution the interns to remain above-board, read the COI policy and be restrained in their citations? I can be reached at will at bostonreview dot net.
Thanks,
Will Fertman, Boston Review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.126.178 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming we are talking about User:Bostonreview: that account should never have been created in the first place, because its name is that of a collective entity, and only individual human beings are permitted to have editing accounts here. Additionally, that account has a history since 2006 of only being used 1) to edit articles about Boston Review, in violation of our rules on conflict of interest; and 2) more recently, to add links to articles in the Boston Review, an act we call "spamlinking". The individual human beings at the BR, interns and otherwise are welcome to become individual editors here, subject to our rules on conflict of interest, spamming, etc.; but we will not unblock a "role account" for these reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Julaug06.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Julaug06.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}