User talk:Sarah from sbp

August 2017
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 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. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The global rename tool is down right now. I will rename you when able. Just Chilling (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Renamed from 'Presse sbp' to 'Sarah from sbp'. Just Chilling (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for renaming. --Sarah from sbp (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. Our name change took place together with a new corporate design in September 2015:. I did not realize this would be seen as memory-holing since the name change is minimal. However I understand your point and caution regarding this matter. If unblocked I would reverse the company name changes on all articles relating to schlaich bergermann partner prior to September 2015 and add information about the name change to the main article about schlaich bergermann partner. Would this be sufficient in your opinion? --Sarah from sbp (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the name change is so minimal that you didn't think it mattered when you put the wrong name, why was it big enough to remove every mention of the old name in the first place? Sorry, I remain unconvinced that having you edit Wikipedia would be beneficial to the encyclopedia, but you're welcome to request another review of your block by another admin. Huon (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I know you won't unblock me but just to explain: I did not think about the concept of memory-holing at the time, I just wanted to update our name. I admit I should have thought about this possibility of leaving a wrong impression but I did not at the time, which was a mistake. I understand now that I should not have done this for articles relating to the time prior to September 2015 and I would not do this again. Thank you for reverting edits. Sarah from sbp (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)