User talk:JRD21

Speedy deletion nomination of Lintbells


A tag has been placed on Lintbells, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, and for using Wikipedia only for advertising. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, and spammers are not welcome here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you been asked to create articles by a third party? Kuru   (talk)  23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get approached by companies who wish to have a 'presence' on wikipedia but do not have the wherewithal to do it themselves. I explain to them it is NOT an advertising service, and that wikipedia will only accept informative articles about their company, backed by references. Some think Wikipedia is like Facebook! I am happy for any article I write to be removed if deemed advertising, but I am definitely not a spammerJRD21
 * That's kind of the problem. If you can't tell which of your clients are banned spammers who would like you to proxy for them, and you can't tell if the content you create is promotional in nature, then there's a sort of basic competency issue in play.  In this particular instance, you did indeed make paid edits for one of those banned individuals, and created an article that was pretty spammy.  Kuru   (talk)  12:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit I have made a mistake on this occasion, and will not be creating anything for these people on Wikipedia in future if my ban is lifted. I have contributed other perfectly legitimate articles, so I contest the idea of a basic competency issue. I ask that my ban be lifted in good faith. JRD21 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are blocked, not banned. There is a difference. Which "other perfectly legitimate articles" have you contributed, and which account did you use for that? Peridon (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ones for Amanda Hamilton, the Fine Cheese Co., Nottingham Forest international footballers, Derek Rose, The Men Who Lost China. These were done under my previous account (JackRubysDog) which I had lost the password to. JRD21