MCDSpockPinch

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is against Wikipedia's policy: an account is for an individual, not a group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service.

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 this 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 this 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 by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

{

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

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

---

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

I understand that it looks like the sole reason I created a Wikipedia account was to create a page for a business. That much is true, but it is not the full extent of the truth. Creating a page for a business was the push I needed to venture into the world of Wikipedia editing/content creation. If I am unblocked, I would like to make contributions to Wikipedia through edits of existing pages - perhaps correcting some grammar here and there (although by and large the language on Wikipedia is more a question of taste rather than 'right and wrong') - and I will continue to use Wikipedia as millions do around the world - as my go-to resource to find out about stuff I wonder about; a springboard to greater knowledge and insight. The fact that I was blocked for creating a site for a business shows the level of integrity Wikipedia has, and I hope you believe me when I say that I didn't realize what I was doing wasn't legit. I don't think I would have chosen the company name in my very username, had I wanted to legitimately defraud Wikipedia - it's not the smartest MO for a Wikipedia villain, is it?

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Read carefully

Thanks for email. Unblock requests on talk pages automatically notify interested admins, and your request would have been considered within a day or two. I don't normally review my own blocks in the interest of fairness, but I've unblocked you for now on a technicality in that the blocked account partly included the name of an individual (without the "Marcus" you would have had little hope of a successful appeal). However, I strongly suggest that you steer well clear of the Lendstreet topic.

Your article did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts, was highly promotional in tone (just a sales pitch with no verifiable facts about how it meets the notability guidelines, such as as the number of employees, turnover or profits). For the record, sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. that's particularly the case when they are spamlinks.

Your user name, editing history and comments like I would also like to create a page for a company that has done great things, and is worthy of recognition make it clear that you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, and your aim is to promote the company, rather than create an encyclopaedia article. If you have a financial stake in promoting this topic, directly or indirectly, you must declare it. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization, directly or indirectly, to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:MCDSpockPinch. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MCDSpockPinch|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. I can't stop you rewriting the article, but I can block you if I consider that you are still promoting the company or failing to disclose a likely COI, and I can prevent recreation of the article if necessary too. It's in your own interests to gain editing experience before you take the high risk strategy of rewriting the company page. If you wish to reply, follow the link to my talk page. I'm watching this page now, so you can alternatively reply here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)