User talk:Damonkbm

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.

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.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

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


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text 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 below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think one problem over your edits was that they weren't referenced. Coupled with the name, that meant trouble. I can't see much problem with the info added, except for the lack of referencing, but if you can supply reliable independent sources for it, then a new name might also be advisable as you cannot use yourself as a reference. OK, you probably know more than we do, but you aren't independent. Look at WP:RS and see what you think. (The change from Superbear to Super Bear wouldn't need referencing unless there was an argument. The location of a recording session probably would.) A query I have is that there does seem to be a Super Bear presence on Facebook type sites, which is possibly unusual for a business that has departed. Peridon (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, There are over 42,000 direct references to Super Bear Studios on Google search. It was, as I said, a world famous recording studio. As far as the Facebook reference is concerned, that is a page I set up quite a few years ago for friends and family who wanted to see photos of the studio before and after it burned down. Photo's of it burning were published in Paris Match. It was a big story back then. Anyway, the page exists and it has 107 likes to date (not exactly an earth shattering number I can build a business on the back of). The problem about referencing is something I can't avoid as I am probably the only person with an interest who knows the actual recording dates (from my diaries) and, for example, actual knowledge as to what the building was before it became a recording studio. I removed a referenced sentence on the Van Morrison "Common One" album page which stated that it was an old abbey that burned down straight after Van Morrison recorded there. That was a total fabrication, and yet referenced. So, it would appear that others can write anything they like about my former business and provide inaccurate references, yet I, who knows the truth, cannot make a correction. At the end of the day, whilst it probably doesn't make a big difference to you, I suffered the loss of a business that had a dramatic effect on my life. All I want is to set a few things straight where I can. I leave you to decide how to proceed. Kind Regards, Damon
 * This is a problem we have. So many people make things up about themselves. And other people make things up about others. You, with your music connections, will know that many artists put out somewhat less than accurate biographies. Can you not find some reference that is correct? Anyway, for now I've put a talkback notice on Orange Mike's talk page to alert him to this conversation. I'm very inclined to believe you (and I'm usually very cynical...), but we do have procedures to counter the less than accurate. Anything without a reference can be removed - anything with a reference can be challenged with another reference. In both cases, it's best to use the article talk page. I'm off to bed - OM is in a different part of the globe and may not be around yet. See how it goes. Peridon (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Decision please.
Hi, I would be grateful if someone could either make a decision to unblock my account, or ask any more pertinent questions, although, I don't know what else I can say to satisfy you. Kind Regards, Damon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbearstudios (talk • contribs)
 * There is nothing to prevent other persons without your conflict of interest from improving these articles. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with Orange Mike
So, if I understand correctly, I cannot make changes to incorrect spellings or inaccurate entries because Orange Mike believes there is a conflict of interest - albeit that no commercial or otherwise financial benefit is being gained, whereas others can happily use misspellings or give inaccurate references - and yet, it is okay for me to have an independent party make changes on my behalf. How does that legitimize anything?

If this is the case, what purpose does Wikipedia serve other than to allow the widespread dissemination of misinformation.

Let me ask you this question: Had my user name been different, would you have even noticed my corrections, other than for being the "minor changes" I specified they were? Of course not, because the changes were innocuous. Sure, I should have chosen a different user name, I realize that now and will be happy to change it.

But quite frankly, to continue to block my account (or not change my user name) and stop me from making a few minor changes to incorrect spellings and modifying or removing inaccurate references to my former business (let's face it, I'm not asking for a lot as there are ONLY 13 references on here), is in my opinion, very heavy handed on your part.

Please can I have a definitive response from Wikipedia on this issue because I consider this protracted process to be little more than psychological torture.

Regards, Damon