User talk:Webzzle

November 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page Champagne (wine) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. HamburgerRadio (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used 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, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. You have violated one or more of our rules, including rules against adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, using Wikipedia for promotion, and editing inappropriately with a conflict of interest. This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia's policies. Although Wikipedia has a great many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use 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 Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals here, 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 or organization. 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}} below this message box.
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.

See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information. Q ^{T C} 23:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Requested username:

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

Decline reason:

You're already there! Use {{Unblock}} instead of {{Unblock-spamun}} if you're not going to request a rename. No comment on the proposals except to note that en.wikipedia's community and fr.wikipedia's community are not the same. Community consensus here cannot apply on fr.wiki, and vice versa. Same goes for administrative ability, blocks, etc. If you are blocked on fr.wiki, request unblock for fr.wiki there; en.wiki admins have no power to overturn fr.wiki blocks. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is any relationship with fr:wiki related to the block. Unless I totally misunderstood the whole issue :)

Here is why I unblocked him: he wants to discuss a proposal with the community. I *thought* (and it was obviously a mistake) that the community would at least agree to talk with someone with a proposal, even if it is to say "no" after a couple of exchanges. I suggested to him that he posts on the pump an explanation of his proposal, and I thought (obviously a mistake) that it would be acceptable to drop *one* link for a couple of days on one article so that people would see what the stuff is about. Mind you, I did not know that the stuff was patented, which clearly makes it a big problem. And I think he misunderstood me when I said "explain in the comment box and in the discussion page what you are doing", and the explanation ended up on the article itself (ooops).

However, I do think that:

the person is not a fool and will not add the links to the article again. It does not make much sense to block a person forever when all they wanted to do was simply to discuss a proposal. I doubt very very much that he will spam again after such a warning. I'll check by email with him.
whilst the issue of adding a link of example is dropped, I think we should be able to discuss quietly any proposal without blocking people when they discuss on the pump just because we do not like the proposal. I hope we can at least agree on this point.

Thanks

Anthere (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have no issue with discussion, it'd just be helpful to reference it *before* you start using an expressly forbidden username. And looking at the contribs you'll notice there's no indication there's a related topic on the village pump, so the block came well before there was any indication of a proposal. Q ^{T C} 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course I will not add the links anymore if the community deems the proposal is "not compliant". At least I'll be able to answer and discuss now with others. Webzzle (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]