User talk:Bretthuk72

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Acorn Publications, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 16:47, 7 July 2015 (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.

Bretthuk72 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Bretth1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

In the comment below, FiddleFaddle in effect expresses the view that, although the blocking administrator chose to say "Your username is the only reason for this block", that is not, in fact, the only problem, and I have to agree with that. At best, you are editing with a serious conflict of interest, as your editing concerns a business which you are clearly working for, and at worst your edits look rather like an attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise your company's products. You are welcome to make another unblock request if you intend to contribute to Wikipedia in ways other than telling the world about your business, in which case your unblock request would make it clear that you understand the reason for the block, and that you will in future avoid problems with conflict of interest or promotional editing. Unless and until you are unblocked, you should not edit Wikipedia at all, except for this page, whether using this account or otherwise. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn Publications (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend no change of username be allowed and the block remain in place unless and until this editor confirms that they understand WP:COI and will comply with our rules. Please check Acorn Mobility and the editor's own contributions history, and also consider the IP edits to it after they were blocked are block evasion before considering this name change. Fiddle Faddle 09:00, 8 July 2015 (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).

Bretthuk72 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand your concerns JamesBWatson FiddleFaddle and reasons for the block I agree to and understand WP:COI the changes what I have made were updating factual information on the company correct I do not want to in any way promote the company or its products on Wikipedia just to provide accurate information on the company for its users and contribute to the site in a positive way I have also instructed a donation to the Wiki foundation as a way of thanks for providing the page

Decline reason:

I note your agreement. Your name is intrinsically promotional and must be changed; use {{unblock-un}}. Please note that it is not "your" page, and donations do not ensure its retention or its content.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:37, 8 July 2015 (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.

I remain hard to convince. My reluctance is because of the huge string of IP based edits that may be by this editor, that have been adding various aspects of Acorn Mobility to various articles in what appears to be a load of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. I am not in a position to check whether the two are the same, and we have strict processes to guarantee anonymity of IP editors anyway, but I have my doubts about this editor's future behaviour based on prior history. I am not an admin. I have no power to block or unblock. I am simply expressing my doubts and ask the admin who considers this unblock request to consider my doubts.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am in favour of good paid editing. I deprecate self or client promotion and poor paid editing. Fiddle Faddle 11:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle I believe your comments to be very harsh for a noteworthy company who has made many charitable contributions. Repeated use of IP edits is simply an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia its nothing sinister or act of spam. I also feel this behavior as bullish as you say let the admins decide

Please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ otherwise no-one knows that you have said what you have said

The admins will decide. They look at your editing track record, at the assertions you make, and at items they perceive likely to have been by you. They also take into account comments by other editors. I perceive you to be a spammer, using Wikipedia for the commercial gain of yourself and your employer/client, and doing so badly. I have a right to state this with clarity and with politeness.

I truly do not care whether the org has made charitable contributions. Charity does not buy a Wikipedia entry. Fiddle Faddle 11:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because you claim to be a "noteworthy company" doesn't make it so, in fact the current consensus appears to be that the page should be deleted, as the company isn't notable. That article has been edited almost exclusively by single-purpose accounts, and I don't see how unblocking this account is beneficial to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-un | user=Acorn Publications| reason= I agree to and understand [[WP:COI]]}}

There is no point in having two unblock requests at the same time, so I am closing one of them.
~~Your unblock requests give "Acorn Publications" as your requested username, but that is the name you already have, and which led to the block. You need to request a new username.~~
I fully accept that you have been acting in good faith, that you did not know about the guidelines and policies concerned, and that, as you said, there was nothing sinister in what you have done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: If we may make assumptions, they previously hoped for Bretth1972 as their username (somewhere near the head of the page). I suspect the repeated reapplication for the currently blocked name to be finger trouble. While I seem to hold a different view from you over the suitability of this editor I see no reason for finger trouble to hold consideration of their application for a change of name back. Fiddle Faddle 11:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FiddleFaddle: Yes, I see now that you are right. I just looked at the latest unblock requests, and forgot the earlier request for change of username to "Bretth1972". I am editing the unblock request to correct that mistake. (I feel this is an occasion when it is reasonable to make an exception to the principal that one does not edit another editor's talk-page post.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acorn Publications, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Fiddle Faddle 17:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bretthuk72 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Bretth1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I agree to and understand WP:COI

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username/simple as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. @Timtrent: - I think need you need to give this one a miss and continue your excellent work at AfC elsewhere. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acorn Mobility will settle this one way or another. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: You do realise that @JamesBWatson: has concluded that they've been using IP addresses and dodgy netowrks to evade blocks? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acorn Publications. Don't think that a block evader like this should be allowed on Wikipedia, they haven't "understood their lesson" as they've used IP addresses to evade the block, and harass other users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acorn Mobility. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New users generally don't understand policies, so it's best to AGF and give them a second chance. Sorry, I'm not a fan of SPIs, they come across as witch-hunts too often in my view, when sometimes it's simply somebody who forgot to log in, forgot their password, thought they'd change identity and start again without knowing the usual WP:CLEANSTART policies. Are they here to write an encyclopedia? Maybe. If somebody said your work was "a bloated piece of appalling advertorial, probably by a paid editor", how would you feel? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Acorn Mobility. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Stop adding pointless, improperly formatted requests to this page. Users know it needs a cleanup due to COI issues, stop trying to add tags that don't work, and also remove the content of the article. Leave the article alone, suggest changes/improvements at the talkpage, in a clear, concise manner (not just saying "cleanup"). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Acorn Mobility, you may be blocked from editing. That tag doesn't work, and isn't true- the article needs cleanup due to the COI edits by you and your IP editors. Stop adding broken, pointless, incorrect tags to this page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Acorn Mobility. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

If you add this meaningless tag again, I will report you to the edit warring board. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated addition of the cleanup-tag to Acorn Mobility[edit]

Hello. Please stop adding the tag since it doesn't apply. {{cleanup}} is used for requesting a cleanup, i.e. for asking other editors to step in and remove problems in the article, not for declaring that an article is "clean", which is what you seem to think, judging by the reason you gave in the tag. Most of the problems with unencyclopaedic/promotional content and shaky references in the article have already been taken care of, and there are many eyes on it, so adding a cleanup-tag to the article will only confuse people. Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 14:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok sorry thanks Bretthuk72 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]