User talk:Kirklloyd

Welcome!
Hello, Kirklloyd, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Kirklloyd/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
 * Article development
 * Standard layout
 * Lead section
 * How to write a great article
 * The perfect article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kirklloyd/sandbox


A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Kirklloyd/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Your account has been blocked indefinitely 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 or other organisation or group or a web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than 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:
 * 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.

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. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a lot of repetition. The fact of the matter is that you spammed a commercial website into an encyclopedia article. The evidence is clear, even if you also removed a bad link. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the repetition you see is, I think there was an issue with the first review code I added. I quickly fixed it, I think i missed the 4 ~ at the end. I don't agree with "spammed a commercial website into an encyclopedia article", but I understand your point of view. The link wasn't added for commercial purposes, it was added to match the link directly above "[2]" which is the exact same type of link(Linking to pinnacle racing). Perhaps I should have read further on Wikipedia to find out that the existing links were, in fact, a breach of policy and I only added to the issue. I didn't and I can't change that. None of that changes that I was writing an article on Bont, the company I have been accused of spamming, that has now been deleted for a minor edit blown out of proportion. Is this decision final? As in, am I wasting my and your time by responding? I'm not a spammer, rather a person who made a mistake over a month ago and wants to continue drafting a page on Bont to have reviewed for addition to Wikipedia once it's completed.Kirk Lloyd 08:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not treat anyone like an idiot as you have so politely written. I read your guidelines on requesting for a review to be undertaken and I tried to keep my tone civil and not escalate the conversation (something I feel you haven't followed. I did read on your profile that you mean no harm and can be taken harshly or out of context so will assume I have done this), I answered honestly and openly. Now I have seen your reply, I can see where I break the rules. The WP:COI link was not mentioned before. Some feedback, perhaps the explanation for the ban could be explained a little better in the first notification for future users. I did not understand the section I was in breach of until you linked WP:COI in the second response. I accept that I am in breach of the COI policy only. I don't believe I was writing from a biased point of view but I do understand the need for this policy. My initial edit was to remove a spam link and add Bont, this breached COI which was not my intention. I do hope that someone will pick up an article on Bont and understand I can't write it. The article was never about promotion, it was about adding the contributions Bont has had to the skating industry like Rollerblade and Riedell_Skates. The articles on inline speed skating are missing information the on current features of inline speed skating boots for which Bont are responsible. Kirk Lloyd 13:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)