User talk:Lexically

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the 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 below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 16:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few key questions: Yes, I do understand that and never intended to contravene that principle. Lexically (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?

Yes, I do see there can easily be a conflict of interest and agree with the policy of removing any doubt. I will be very careful to avoid any of these problems in future. I am also happy to change my username to reduce the likelihood of perceived conflict of interest. Lexically (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?

Yes indeed. Lexically (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have not indicated what editing you expect to do if unblocked, and how it will differ from what you have done in the past, which, whatever you intended, was virtually 100% promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited in the past about various issues to do with key words, keyness and corpus linguistics, which are my areas of professional interest. And once, my first some years ago, a trivial addition to the entry on "passepartout". If you have a way of seeing my posts you will probably be able to check them by my answer to the question about my identity. My research is all about key words and I'm a corpus linguist. I expect to continue posting about those issues but I shall be careful to avoid giving any impression that I'm promoting any wares! I wrote the entry under "keyness". I put a bibliographical reference at it to a book I co-wrote on the topic. I am not trying to promote that book. I am merely trying to help any interested reader find out more about keyness. If that is not appropriate, perhaps you could let me know and I will delete the reference. I was previously employed by Liverpool University and had a .liv.ac.uk email address -- it was ms2928@liv.ac.uk and when I first signed up I had that sign-up. I changed that to Lexically when I changed employers and the .liv.ac.uk address and its aliases were cancelled. A first posting about 6 years ago (?) was a tiny edit to the word passepartout. I can see edits from 2010 but not proof of mine, which I believe is the last sentence in the entry under the meaning related to "framing": "The word may also be used for the tape used to stick the back of the picture to its frame." Lexically (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I also note that I can find no evidence that you have ever edited from this account about "passepartout", and your first edits from this account were to add promotional content to the article WordSmith, which is about software. Did you edit about "passepartout" from another account? If so, can you tell us what account? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)