User talk:Peter Manning NYC (menswear)

Welcome
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation, which is also against policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free advertising service. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have just read your email, in which you ask to be unblocked. You need to follow the proceure explained in the block notice above, and I will not assess your request to be unblocked, but will leave it to another administrator, so that you get an indepndent review. I will, however, give answers to some of the other points you raised in your email.

You say that the article you wrote was "not an attempt at adverting or promotion". Whatever your intention, it certainly read as promotional to me. Very often, someone who is closely involved in a subject is unable to stand back from it and see how their writing will look from the detached perspective of an uninvolved outside observer. Consequently, I often find that editors writing on behalf of a business or other organisation appear to sincerely not see what is promotional about their writing, even when multiple independent editors see it as such. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editing on a subject in which you have a personal involvement. However, if you request an unblock then the reviewing administrator will be able to make a judgement on this issue.

You say that you "believe that there are far more examples of blatant marketing among other companies that have WIkipedia pages". Unfortunately, this is true. Among the four million and more Wikipedia articles, there are many which do not conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is only when a user reports them that anything can be done about them. If you can give specific examples, then they can be improved, or, if necessary, deleted.

You say that "The article has facts that [you] have verified and double checked with reliable sources". This may well be true, but the article was deleted for being promotional, not for being factually inaccurate. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)