User talk:Pquinton

December 2019[edit]

There have been two problems 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 or a web site, 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. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

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 that 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.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe that my account has been blocked in error. I was attempting to add a cross link to another wikipage to help users see an alternative company other than the ones already listed.

Decline reason:

Looks like the block was appropriate. You were indeed violating WP:USERNAME and WP:COI. It also looks like you were violating WP:PAID and WP:PROMO. If you wish to be unblocked, convince us you understand why, pick a new username, and tell us what you'd write about instead. Yamla (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2019 (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 request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

pquinton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Ok i can see why WP:USERNAME and WP:COI are classed as violating the terms. I can also confirm that I am not getting paid for this aswell. If you are unable to unblock me I intend to add some useful citations for the wiki community. Regards Phil

Decline reason:

Since you state that there is nothing you want to edit, there is no reason to remove the block, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Understood and I agree Pquinton (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your association with Clarity Travel Management? If you are an employee, you are a paid editor. You don't have to be specifically asked or directed to edit Wikipedia. Also, please expand on what you mean by "useful citations"; what articles or topic areas do you want to edit in? 331dot (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

globally renamed ClarityTravelManagement to Pquinton amd unblock discussion[edit]

I globally renamed ClarityTravelManagement to Pquinton. Please see User:Deepfriedokra/decline promo renamed for my usual conditions for unblock in these instances. You will not be allowed to edit about ClarityTravelManagement in any event, though you could possibly suggest edits. Please tell us what constructive edits you might make.-- Deep fried okra 23:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming, I'm a complete novice when it comes to Wikipedia and I had no idea that was breaking any rules. (Please accept my apologies for this) I initially just wanted to update some out-of-date information on the Clarity Travel Management page which I did and I believe benefits the community. Is there any way this page can have the redirect taken off it so that it is accessible again? Going forward I will ensure that I only add general information about the industry. --Pquinton (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be difficult for you to edit about your industry due to your conflict of interest. You may find reading this plain language explanation of the conflict of interest policy helpful; I would direct your attention to the line from that page "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors". Are there any other subjects that you want to edit about?

It's unlikely the article about Clarity Travel Management will be restored unless it can be demonstrated how the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company and why it would merit an article separate from the individual. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the plain language explanation. After reading this I have no interest in editing or adding any relevant content at all, in any industry.

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because all of the information contained within the page references external and impartial sources. The company is notable, so surely it makes more sense to highlight the areas of concern and edit these, as opposed to removing the page entirely?--Pquinton (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]