User talk:Tallem

October 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have looked at your editing history, and I cannot understand why anyone would regard it as promotional, and you have also dealt with the username issue, so I see no reason not to unblock you. However, I will give the blocking administrator, Randykitty, a chance to comment here, in case she has any relevant reasons to think you should not be unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The username is against policy. Once that has been handled, I don't think there's any reason not to unblock. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have renamed the account. can I suggest that if an editor has not actually made any promotional edits and their user name is the only problem, then we should use ? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, . That's actually what I usually do, this one must have slipped through when I was doing a bunch of COI editors. Sorry about that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I never use a "softerblock". If the only reason for the block is the username, and there are no problems with the editing, then it seems to me that it is almost always totally unnecessary to block an editor, rather than just giving her or him a friendly message explaining the username policy, and inviting them to change their username. Only if there are also problems with the editing do I block. Of course it's a different matter if the username is offensive, but then a "softerblock" would not be appropriate anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, that's an interesting take - I'd not thought of it like that. But I suppose if they have been told they need to change their username but still carry on editing without doing so, then a soft block might still be necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding. Tallem (talk) 0:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)