User talk:Eddertull
Welcome!
|
Offalyhistory, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]Hi Offalyhistory! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
There have been two problems identified with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.
If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}
at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 16:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC){{unblock-spamun|eddertull|I was just fixing links. Didn't know about the username issue when I signed up. How is it spam to fix our links? WE are a charitable organisation.}}
Eddertull (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Accept reason:
- I don't think your edits should be considered spam. Please note there's nothing wrong with having a link to an archived copy of a page, though. Huon (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes with that specific page that revision can be reversed. I will have a look.Eddertull (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)