User talk:Ozzie mate service

April 2018
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. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That username is just as unacceptable. See WP:Username policy. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 07:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment
I won't consider your request because I blocked you, so that wouldn't be fair. You need to actually read what my block notice says. Your proposed new user name also represents a company, so there is no chance that it will be permitted. You have also not given the required assurance that you won't write about your company if you are unblocked.

Note also that anyone writing about any company or product must independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company organisation claims or interviewing its management. The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.

Each individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)