User talk:Brightinfo

Welcome!

Hello, Brightinfo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like BrightHouse, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of BrightHouse

A tag has been placed on BrightHouse, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

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 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Mike, I understand the reason for the blocking of the account user name. My apologies for using it in the first place. It was only done in now what I know was, in fact a misguided attmept to be completely above board. Not to hide behind a user name and in no way attempt to abuse the wiki principles. I've looked at the list of user names available, as suggested and propose using this one instead; "unmossify". Perhaps, therefore you might be kind enough to reconsider the block? Your sincerely unmossify, formally Brightinfo

Decline reason:

The new username is fine, but there is also the issue of your problematic edits; see the above warnings and your block notice for details. If you don't address that, you can't be unblocked. Mango juice^talk 13:35, 17 February 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Mango/Mike, Again thank you for the clarification. I now appreciate that the factor of the user name is not the substantive reason for the block. As I mentioned our original intention was and still is to adhere to the wiki guidelines, otherwise as we're all aware it's usefulness is of of course undermined. If I might address the substantive issue. The reason for our article/entry is threefold on what it is felt to be are public interest issues. 1) There is evident confusion (ambiguity) between the nature of the US company Brighthouse Networks, in the public domain "Who are Brighthouse. Are they this, are they that etc", 2) Brighthouse in the UK do have a major street presence and are often discussed, 3) Obviously, there is our offical website, but what what we've tried to do with the Wiki entry is a) be purely factual b) included the fact that there is much debate about the whole "Rent to Buy" sector, thereby including non PR details and c) have of course referenced with independent and respected sources all the facts included in the entry. F.Y.I information and again in the spirit of not wishing to undermine the value of Wiki as a resource, but merely to include rounded, non website PR information, I'd like to point out that we've also added what we feel is simply a note to the U.S Brighthouse Networks entry page. This merely mentions that if it's the UK Brighthouse one is seeking, then one should go to the Brighthouse Stores entry. Certainly, we're more than happy to take advice, feedback and of course other edits to the article (subject to them not being vandalism and that in everybody's interest, they in themselves adhere to Wiki guidelines). We just felt that being above board and trying to offer a dry factual entry, was of interest. Given our aims and the way we've attempted to go about it, perhaps therefore access might again be granted. Certainly, if we were to undermine Wikipedia then of course, we would suffer the justifable penalties. Yours unmossify

Decline reason:

It seems as though if you were unblocked, you would be making edits solely in relation to your company. This would be in violation of our conflict of interest guideline, which is part of the reason for your block. Because you have a vested interest in the company, edits you make in relation to your company are likely to be biased towards the company in some way, even if you don't intend to do so. Since Wikipedia strives to be neutral, this is not what we're after. You would be welcome to advise others on article talk pages with information about your company, but we would prefer you let them make those edits themselves. If unblocked, what other areas would you be interested in working on?

Also, when requesting unblocking, please log into your account to do so. Sinebot's comment below indicates that you were not logged in when you made this request. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.125.218 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to thank you for your kind attention. I appreciate your points and would like to think you'll understand that having not been logged in last time, was purely and oversight. 17:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)