User talk:SocialHostLaw

Welcome!

 * }

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Social host liability has been reverted. Your edit here to Social host liability was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://socialhostlaw.wordpress.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the website socialhostlaw.wordpress.com does meet your criteria. This site is a clearinghouse of data from government sites, MADD, Choose Responsibility, etc. Lots of competing voices, plus as an unpaid editor, I provide a primer and FAQs for parents and lawmakers, post the latest news, etc. I have been a freelance journalist and columnist for over 20 years with articles on many subjects. I was attempting to edit the page Social Host Liability because the information is incomplete, not backed up with references and one of the two external sites points toward the author at his law firm (www.socialhostliability.net). I didn't try to erase what he put in, just added more detail and balance. Strange that the for-profit law firm is allowed to point the article to their own website while the balanced, non income-producing clearinghouse is banned. How do we get it released? Thank you. SocialHostLaw (talk)SocialHostLaw that was but the email address still gets notices about conversations here.
 * I removed the spamlink to a commercial firm's website. As to your own stuff: "promotion" as the term is used here included links to your own non-profit websites, not just the commercial stuff: see: "Your noble cause". I join everybody else in hoping you will continue to edit here, just with more caution about COI issues. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Username issue
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen, "SocialHostLaw", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website. Please note that Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or shared by multiple people. Please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. NTox · talk 21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am leaving a note here as requested. I was attempting to use the same username I have for several newspaper accounts, Facebook and Twitter to provide a consistent identity. I've been a published magazine journalist for 20+ years but in addition have an area of expertise: underage drinking laws and social host laws. My website (which I do on my own time) serves as a clearinghouse of data on these laws. It is a noncommercial, non-profit making, unbiased source for lawmakers and parents nationwide. I can edit the name as necessary but I wanted to explain why I chose it and that it doesn't represent a group, a corporation or anyone but me, myself and I.
 * Greetings. It sounds like you may have a lot to offer to the encyclopedia. I hope you stay on board - and I appreciate your explanation of the situation. Despite that, I would say that it would probably be best if you edited under a different username simply because it does share the same name as the website you operate. The English Wikipedia community is generally very sensitive to issues like this, because we do everything we can to write from a neutral point of view (even when the issue involves non-commercial interests). If you don't mind, I would recommend following the advice above - in which you can create a new account (which is quick, but your previous contributions are lost), or request a username change (which is slower, but your contributions are retained). If you choose to create a new account, it's always wise to be transparent and note that you did so on the new account's user page. I'm sorry for the hiccups you have already encountered! Let me know if I can be of further help. NTox · talk 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reclaimed an old, unrelated user name and will abandon this one. I want to thank everyone for their help and advice.SocialHostLaw (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)SocialHostLaw that was
 * [[Image:Stop_x_nuvola.svg|left|35px|alt=|link=]] 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?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * 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. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User Assistance Needed
I'm writing in caps because I don't know where to write the following on this page: How do I appeal this and change my user name? Why are two administrators making contradictory decisions in the same minute? Has Orange Mike even visited my website? Really, I'm not yelling, just trying to be seen in this format. The current contributor on the social host liability page, who added his own for profit law firm website seems to have no problem, yet my non-commercial clearinghouse with expert opinions from attorneys, lawmakers, parents and prosecutors is not permitted? Thank you for reconsidering this. -- SocialHostLaw (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that you'll probably just need to create another account from scratch. Part of the problem here was that your username and your edits to Wikipedia show that your additions include yourself as a source. If this is incorrect, please make sure and explain. If you do make a new account, please take care to stay in line with the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guideline. (See WP:COI)
 * Your username should be clear that it is not going to be used by others, so a username like EditorAtSocialHostLaw would not be a good choice, but JoeAtSocialHostLaw might be ok. You might also pick something like TheSocialHostLawyer, but I think it might be best to simply steer clear of those sorts of names entirely.
 * If you do make edits to Wikipedia, please try and ensure that the additions can be sourced in line with the Wikipedia Reliable Sources guideline. (See WP:RS)
 * Good luck. Feel free to leave additional questions if you like. -- Avanu (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reclaimed an old username, unrelated to this topic and want to thank everyone for their help and advice about user names. SocialHostLaw (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC) SocialHostLaw that was

User name
Do I need to change my user name? I created my account to create an article that is very much related to my user name. I am the main editor (read only) of the article I created. This user may have created the account just to improve one article and now I can see why they are confused and frustrated. I don't read anywhere that user names can't be similar to article names only similar to articles about themselves or their organizations. I would assume that any user name similar to a rock band or video game etc. probably has lots of edits to those articles. They may be accused of POV but I can't see accusations of COI holding up. Centennial Voyageur Canoe Pageant is the article I created.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops. I didn't realize they had a website by the same name. I just noticed it matched an article he was editing. I can see the point for a name change now as it is the same as an organization. May I assist him in the unblock if he chooses a better username? SocialHostFan, SocialHostWP type thing may still be wrong but I think Canoe1966 may be available. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer Canoe1967. I have reclaimed an older user name unrelated to this work. I appreciate the offer to become a Canoe, though.
 * You are very welcome. That will leave a Canoe name open in case I ever need a sock account. (kidding)--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Review
Okay, here's the thing. Any individual Wikipedia account is only to be used by one single person. It cannot be used by the membership of an organization as a whole. If your username is the name of an organization, you will most likely be blocked, even if you were not sharing the account with anyone else.

At this point, you have three choices:


 * 1) you can abandon this account and start over with a new one
 * 2) you can file a request on Changing usernames (in which case you'll have to post  here on your userpage first, along with the note that you want to be unblocked so you can change names)
 * 3) you can get upset and walk away from the project.

(Frankly, we'd prefer you to choose 1 or 2, but it'd be intellectually dishonest not to mention 3 as a possibility!)

I regret the inconvenience that this has caused. DS (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I have done #4. I have reclaimed an older username and will abandon this one, and this talk page, after I get a few other questions answered about why the website was also banned. Your help has been appreciated. SocialHostLaw (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)SocialHostLaw that was