User talk:Lfsolutions

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Lfsolutions. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
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, 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 this 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. BethNaught (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:KippsDeSanto & Co.


A tag has been placed on Draft:KippsDeSanto & Co., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 removed 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 deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I won't review this request as I can't tell whether or not you are actually asking for this account to be unblocked. However, it's possible that the text of the draft you created could be made available for you (either by being restored to a user sub-page or by being emailed to you), but I must warn you that it was written in blatant marketing speak and was entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Additionally, it has almost no reliable sources (see WP:RS) attesting to the company's notability (see WP:NCORP) with all bar one of the references being to the company's own site, and in that state would be a candidate for deletion on notability grounds even without the promotional issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the phrasing of your request suggests that you are a group as opposed to a single person, and are possibly being paid to undertake this editing. Please note that accounts here must be accessible to one person only (which will also apply KippsDeSanto should someone there create an account) and also that while paid editing is allowed, it must be openly declared as such. As the page already created and deleted was blatantly promotional and wholly unsuitable in its entirety for inclusion here there is no advantage to you in re-creating it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One further point; every editor in Wikipedia, without exception, has learnt to edit by simple observation within the project. anyone from Kipps could do that, so long as they followed conflict of interest policy. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)