User talk:KehrerVerlag

There have been two problems with this account: 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 or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

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 at the bottom of your talk 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 that 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 at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 11:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If I started a discussion on your talk page, answer there, not here [...]. Though this is not my user page, I'll follow the gist of this and respond here.


 * What's written above seems extraordinarily harsh. Switching the order around:


 * your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person


 * Very true. And that's why I came here: to block this user indefinitely, but informatively and courteously. However you (Alexf) also wrote:


 * the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia


 * I do not see advertising or promotion; and those edits I've looked at have been constructive and beneficial.


 * There are various possibilities here, but by far the likeliest is that there's one person behind this account, that this person is an employee of Kehrer, and that this employee wants, or was instructed, to correct information on Wikipedia by citing a website (Kehrer's own) that they knew well and that would be authoritative for the very minor uses made. As an example, this edit, in which a slightly hazy description of the boxed set One Day - 10 Photographers is definitely improved, and to which a reference is added. For this purpose, the reference is unnecessary; but anyway the one that's provided is to this page at Kehrer. This reference is very similar to notes that I routinely add to articles; see for example the notes I added to each of Ken Grant's photobooks and zines. You may wish to block me for doing this. Alternatively, leave me unblocked, and change what's above to . -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We disagree. The user name exactly matches the name of the company. All the posts so far include a link to their website. The intent may not be harmful or spammy, but the results are a clear violation of policy. Changing username to an employee within the company, and still doing the same edits, as a softerblock, would recommend or encourage to be nothing more than a paid editor. (See this, this, and this edit). -- Alexf(talk) 14:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the username is the company name; and yes, this is a no-no, and by itself grounds for the block that I'd intended. Yes, we disagree, even after looking at all the edits. It's normal for new editors to violate policy. (For example, for years I blithely added assertions and factoids to articles, without any supporting references, on the grounds that my additions were common knowledge, obvious, common sense or whatever.) It's very hard for them not to, given that so many policies and guidelines (however necessary) are written up at such length (however necessary). This person's edits strike me as beneficial but yes, underinformed about policy. Therefore with an additional warning but also a word of thanks and pointers toward either or both of (i) direct editing that would be both beneficial and fully policy-compliant, and (ii) making suggestions in talk pages for edits by others. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)