User talk:JOHNDOE

Which user name compatible with policies i can use here?
 * See Username policy. Your present username is not suitable, because it seems to be that of a group or company, contrary to WP:ORGNAME. You can apply to change it at WP:CHU, or just abandon this one and set up a new one with a username that represents only you. I presume you are the same person as & - please choose just one account and stick to it, to avoid suspicion of "sockpuppetry". JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to message on my talk page: this name would probably be allowed, but in my opinion is not really desirable because it seems to link you with the organization and imply that you might be editing for the organization, rather than as an individual - see the guideline on WP:Conflict of interest. Keep it if you like, and see whether anyone objects, but it might save trouble to change it at WP:CHU. Note that even with an individual username, the rules on conflict of interest would still apply - there is advice at WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid "Eton" and "Associate" are both already taken. There is a link at the bottom of WP:CHU which lets you check. Ask any more questions here - I will watch this talk page. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. Thank you. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also removing the advertisement from your userpage, given the obvious COI. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was misleaded in User_talk:JohnCD that my account is OK, but I was wrong. Please change my name to User:JOHNDOE, and then unblock me - I want avoid risk of being treated like unrelated user who is telling that he is me, block bars me from accessing WP:CHU.


 * Please do not use helpme for the purposes of requesting an unblock. I will modify your unblock request above to take your request into account. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - I did indicate above that "Etonassociate" was not really desirable, and another admin took a sterner view. I will explain to him. I cannot change your username for you - please apply at WP:CHU - read down that page and click on "Simple". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Eton College
Hello, before you call others vandals again, can I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA? You should also familiarise yourself with the definition of vandalism. The material I removed was poorly sourced and not written from a neutral point of view. I explained my edits at Talk:Eton College, after your first revert, where you are free to discuss your objections. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Wikipedia is about improving, not about blanking. So please let someone else improve content instead of blanking. Your edit triggered "Tag: references removed", so is disruptive. JOHNDOE (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for moving your comments here. I think it's best to keep the conversation in one place. My IP address belongs to many people so it's not a good way of communicating with me. Firstly, "Tag: references removed" doesn't mean an edit was disruptive. It's triggered whenever anything containing a hyperlink is removed from an article by an anonymous user. That might include spam or nonsense. There's no prohibition against triggering this. Secondly I don't think the information improved the article at all. It was certainly improperly sourced. It is perfectly normal, and indeed a matter of policy, to delete such text from articles. You need to explain why you believe this information is justified because there's no rule that says nobody should ever delete anything from Wikipedia. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take a minute to read why I "blanked" you. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My assumptions were based solely on tag triggering. Nothing more. JOHNDOE (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a very good reason. A tag isn't an order to revert. Now that I've contacted you, would you please take the trouble of either reverting your previous edit or replying to explanation at Talk:Eton College. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really thought so. JOHNDOE (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio help
Two problems: a) I'm just an editor, and have the ability to do the exact same things you do. b) You didn't say who, what, where, or when these problems were happening, so I have zero opportunity to monitor the situation. VanIsaacWS 12:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind on B, you just added some examples. Guess I caught you in the act, eh? VanIsaacWS 13:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted those articles, and I'll try to keep an eye on them. If I were you, I would start up a conversation on the talk pages of each of these articles, explaining that we have a copyvio deletion discussion happening at commons. Usually more information to editors is a good idea when it comes to these non-obvious edits. VanIsaacWS 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)