User talk:Weird Review

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Weird Review) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because is a promotional name associated with an organisation you are advertising. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. QU ^TalkQu 17:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QU,

I used that as the user name not promotionally but to specifically identify the posts as a potential conflict of interest.

I believe the video interviews I have conducted with Linda Harrison and others are of significant interest to those looking for information about those people and felt they were as worthy of inclusion in the external links as those interviews that I have seen on wikipedia that simply have text of a conversation.

Do you really think that people are going to find this ID and go to my site from there?

I didn't even consider that possibility and find it a rather odd thought.

If you delete my id will it then be available for someone else to use who is not associated with the site who might then make posts that I wouldn't approve of being done under the title "Weird Review" or will all future users also be banned from using it?

Is there instead someone that I can submit links to for them to be considered for posting as I have done a number of other video interviews that I believe would be of interest.

Let me know as I am obviously new to this.

Weird Review (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once an account is blocked it can't be reused by someone else, no. Regardless of the account name though it isn't permitted to engage in promotional activity. Even if your intentions are sound, and I am sure they are, it will always appear as if you are promoting your own web site so it is best to avoid doing it QU ^TalkQu 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 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 by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 23 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Unblock administrator, I did not intend any offense nor did I intend to spam. I was looking at the Linda Harrison "stub" and it said, "This article about a United States film actor or actress born in the 1940s is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." so I thought I would oblige as I had a first hand video interview with the Linda and I thought that would be appropriate. I added the link of the video interview with Mr. Faris my thought was that he is a fascinating fellow and I thought his reverie on passing by icebergs where the titanic sank was fascinating. I didn't add any further links as I wanted to get feedback via your editorial process. Do you folks seriously consider the links to video interviews with the persons who are the subject of the article to be inappropriate? I appologize for not understanding your system as no offense was intended. I was trying to be straight forward and honest and felt that the information I provided was appropriate. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Your straighforwardedness is appreciated, as is your intent to assist the project. Be acutely aware of conflict of interest, our requirements for truly reliable sources, and the hazards of original research, and the fact that you cannot link to external sites that you yourself are related to. As it stands, your userid is still not appropriate as per our username policy. If you understand and agreed to the policies I have linked, you are welcome to request unblock in order to obtain a new username, as per the original instructions you were provided above (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:18, 25 March 2012 (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.

Thanks QuiteUnusual! So Wikipedia really doesn't have a method for an honest person to submit information for review as to its appropriateness if they are in any way associated with that information? That really is surprising for an electronic resource that is attempting to be an encyclopedia of knowledge. Now I understand why there are folks that solicit compensation for submitting things to Wikipedia. Anyhow, it is good to know that nobody else can use the name. Thanks for the clarification.

There are ways of doing it, yes and, had you only added one link to the website and not used an account name that was associated with the website then I doubt anyone would have noticed (although another editor might have removed it if they didn't agree with it). If you had incorporated content in the article and referenced it to the website then it would have been even less likely to be removed (e.g, writing "person A described their life as boring" and then providing a link to where the information was sourced from). Given your close connection to the website though the best option would be to put your suggestion on the article talk page and discuss it with other editors. My advice is to create a new, neutral named, account and contribute to the articles without referencing your website initially. Suggest the use of your website on the relevant article talk page and see what other people think. Thanks. QU ^TalkQu 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]