User talk:WatfordBC

July 2013
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website 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.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for 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 Wikipedia again.
 * 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 may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here 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. (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 11:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock me. The block is no longer needed because I understand what I have been blocked for, and will not do it again. Apologies for not reading through all relevant guidelines. I added the information about Watford Borough Council in good faith - the text had been published in our annual report and on our website. The comments referred to as PR were taken from an independent Audit Commission report. LozLeader removed the text, and I have since read the WP:Promotion guidelines and understand the reasons the text was removed. I had wondered if it was possible to include the council's vision and objectives however? Looking at a few other council wikipedia entries, they do have sections such as 'notable acheivements - Manchester Council, and 'cultural project, economic projects - Cornwall Council. Any advice gratefully received. Hope this format for unblock request is ok. Separate request below for new username. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatfordBC (talk • contribs)

WatfordBC (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Angela, as you're only permitted to have 1 open unblock request at a time, I have made your first one a comment. Based on the block information at the top (sorry - the blocking admin did not provide one), I would like you to comment on WP:COI and also the fact that primary sources (such as your website) are not considered reliable third party sources, plus original research is not accepted.  As such, how do you intend to proceed on Wikipedia? (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 11:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bwilkins, thank you for your reply and comments. I have read through the WP:COI and is there a possibility that I could be seen as a 'subject-matter expert' on Watford? (using the word expert lightly, perhaps). I live and work here, but also work for the council, which I have disclosed (according to Michael Davis, disclosure is a way of approaching COI). I would like to input into entries on the town - Watford (adding some history, which would come from reliable third party sources) - and perhaps create a new one for the town's festival - Imagine Watford - and as before, update the council page with election results - for reasons of accuracy (in case political make-up changes) rather than promotion.WatfordBC (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I would pop by to see if anyone else had actionned this, and then allow you re-think your logic. You are advised that you have COI, but now you want to create another COI-laced article?  As the founder of Wikipedia has stated, those with COI should never edit the article directly, they should only propose changes on the article talkpage.  This would be the same with this userid or any other userid (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 11:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks again for your response. OK, would it be acceptable to suggest text on the article talkpage for Watford (the town), and Watford Borough Council then? What about suggesting a new page - Imagine Watford (a festival in the town). Would that also go on the town's talkpage? I had hoped to persuade you that any further articles/ text submissions would be factual, rather than COI-laced. WatfordBC (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you're current username suggestion doesn't meet out username policy. It will need to be completely separate from the organization's name. Mdann52 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong User:Mdann52, the suggested username is fine. "Bob at Shell Oil" is acceptable, as is "Mary @ Microsoft".  Please don't add additional confusion (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 13:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought something like this had previously been declined before. Struck. Mdann52 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: As you have agreed to use the article talk pages to request and suggest changes in compliance with our conflict of interest guidelines I have unblocked your account in order to allow you to request a username change. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ponyo - thanks very much, will request username change now. Kind regards, Angela WatfordBC (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)