Bikerfan547
February 2009
edit
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) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Why is our page being deleted? It is not spam. It is no different than the "spam" at a competitors article titled "bedandbreakfast.com"
- Then that link should probably be deleted too. Just because another similar link exists elsewhere doesn't make it right. Also, even if the link is a reputable site, simply adding it to a large number of pages in rapid sucession is still called spamming. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}} Wikipedia is a system in which people can continually keep going from article to article by clicking on a term to learn more. "American Historic Inns" is mentioned in the "bed and breakfast" article, and I know, based on the popularity of this book, people would like to know who american historic inns is before they click on the ISBN link. The two reasons stated in this talk page as to why our article was getting deleted was not the reason previously mentioned. We were getting flagged for external link spam - even when the last revision had only one external link. The second reason said something about advertising, which we aren't. We are giving a bio of who we are and why the user should be interested in the book. Go ahead and delete bedandbreakfast.com if you want to be fair and review everyone the same. I am an editor on DMOZ, and I often times see people deleting websites without understanding the full picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisiloveinns (talk • contribs) — Chrisiloveinns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Bikerfan547 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't know if I have been dealing with the same person from the beginning or not, but based on the reason for closing my account you stated that my username was promotional. This is understandable, but was not the reason I received on the first 4 unique rejections, so you must understand the confusion. It stated that I could request a new username and you may change it and possibly let me back in. If so, please use bikerfan547
Decline reason:
See below. The new username is fine, but we need to know you're going to avoid conflict of interest issues. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
So far, it seems like all of your edits on Wikipedia have been related to your own web site. Under the conflict of interest guidelines, we all agree to refrain from editing about ourselves or our own businesses or web sites. Now that you know you won't be writing about your web site, do you still want an active account? What else do you think you'll be writing about? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Bikerfan547 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In the "conflict of interest guidelines" it says: This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount. What do I plan to write about? Keeping our information up to date. In the bed and breakfast article, you had our book in as the 16th edition from 2004. This book is no longer available, and hasn't been available for a long time. I feel that this information is "paramount" to your users, after all, why would you want invalid information? Wikipedia is about accurate information, and clearly we had waited 4 years for someone to update this article and no one did. This kind of "paramount" information is what I plan on updating. And since it is now updated, and we can't create another entry about ourselves, I plan on editing next years book entry on the bed and breakfast article.
Decline reason:
Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. You won't be unblocked unless you agree to avoid the issue you've been blocked for. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
{{unblock|Due to the nature of having a different admin review this post, I think a lot of confusion has come about it. I strongly suggest the next admin who reviews my unblock request read the full story before declining it. I was blocked for creating a new article and promoting my business. Fine. I said I would not do it again. Fine. You just said I won't be unblocked unless I agree to avoid the issue i've been blocked for. I *did* agree. I WILL NOT promote my own business. The previous admin asked why I wanted my account unblocked. I said that I would like to make future updates to the bed and breakfast article, which is not our article, when we release new books, which is yearly. I find this is "Paramount" which is acceptable usage of editing a article, again, this is not the reason I was banned in the first place. I was banned for creating a new article. I don't think it's fair to have false information posted on another article about a company without that company being able to change it.}}
- Ok, I think I understand. The article "bed and breakfast" includes the "American Historic Inns" book as a reference. You want to be able to update the bed and breakfast article when a new version of that book is released. This is okay or slightly touchy depending on exactly what you would be updating. If you would be updating only the reference entry (that is, information about the book itself), that's fine for you to do on your own. I also think it's fine for you to add information to bed and breakfast as it's an area of expertise, not an area where you have a conflict of interest. The only kind of edit that could be troublesome is if you edit the article to mention or reference your book substantially more than it does now: if that's your aim, I would just like you to agree to suggest such edits on the Talk:Bed and breakfast discussion page rather than making them yourself: they will probably be seen as helpful by others and incorporated, which avoids any concern about the article being tainted by conflict of interest. Do you agree? Or am I misunderstanding something? Mangojuicetalk 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Yes, I completely agree with what you said.}}
I am somewhat uncomfortable about your comment above, Bikerfan, "I don't think it's fair to have false information posted on another article about a company without that company being able to change it." This seems to show a weak understanding of the stringency of our rules on conflict of interest. It also implies that "a company" can do something here. No company is permitted to do anything on Wikipedia; only individual human beings can edit here, and those human beings must abide by our rules about conflict of interest, neutral point of view, etc. I'm not going to re-block you; but be aware that more than one editor will be watching your edits when you resume editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying.