User talk:David Pugh Limited

Welcome!
Hello, David Pugh Limited, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorials
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * PK too damn quick. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
 Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must: Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
 * 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.

What is your association with David Pugh? You edited your user page, which is not article space or space to draft an article, but a place for the account operator to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must create and submit a draft via WP:AFC. The two men may not work together now, but they did, and even if Mr. Pugh merits a standalone article, that won't necessarily undo the joint article. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * All we want to do is update the article to bring it post 2019 and to reflect the fact that David Pugh no longer works with Rodgers. I'm very sorry if I've done something wrong but the Wikipedia way of updating information is confusing! 157.231.30.244 (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Claiming that what you did was merely "updating" is totally unjustifiable. To take just one example, you repeatedly replaced the statement that Pugh and Rogers produced Kneehigh Theatre's production of "brief encounter" with the statement that Pugh did it alone. every source that I have seen which mentions Pugh as a producer couples his name with Rogers; here are a few examples:    . Excising the mention of Rogers and claiming that Pugh did it a;one is not "updating", it is "falsifying". A minor slip? No, because that, as I said, that is just one example, and there are more. Looking at those edits I decided it was either deliberate misrepresentation or carelessness at a level coming close to incompetence. However, I then discovered that the editing was not original: the changes have been repeatedly made, the first time being at least as far back as 2020. That is not carelessness: it is a persistent attempt to deliberately misrepresent the extent of Pugh's contributions.  Furthermore, while I can't know exactly who you mean by "we", the page created by the account David Pugh Limited was a completely unambiguous attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, not a matter of "updating" anything. JBW (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I find it a fairly common mistake for new editors to assume, for some reason, that articles may only describe things as they are now, and that if the subject matter of an article no longer exists then all the information about it must be removed. It is quite a while since Augustus ceased to be emperor of Rome, but we still have an article about him. Actually, while I was writing that it occurred to me that, although I'm not sure, it may only be "a fairly common mistake" among editors who are here to try to get Wikipedia to promote the image they wish to have known for themselves, their business, their organisation, or whatever, and wish to suppress information which doesn't have a place in their view of how to promote it. I don't off hand recall seeing the strange idea from editors to whom that doesn't apply, but I may possibly have done so occasionally. JBW (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Forget that, because I have now realised that you are not a new editor, but an editor using a new account to evade a block dating from years ago. JBW (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)