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 {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} 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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tallem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I created and edited the Paris Saint-Germain eSports page under the user name PSGeSPorts, but I don't represent and I am not involved with this organization at all. There is no promotional intent

Decline reason:

Even if you don't actually represent the organization, Wikipedia does not allow usernames that give the impression they represent organizations, so you will need to request a new username as explained above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Tallem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Tallem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I understand, here is a neutral user name. Please note that I am still learning Wikipedia rules. I do not represent the PSG eSports organization whatsoever, and have no promotional intent at all. I actually created this page to give useful information with a neutral point of view; after reading disorganized and partial statements about this organization on Leaguepedia http://lol.gamepedia.com/Paris_Saint-Germain. If I am unblocked, I will add minor updates and informative contributions with the help of the Wikipedia community.

Accept reason:

I've unblocked as per below, and have renamed, welcome back. (I'm sure !James won't mind if I don't stand on ceremony and wait for him, in the interests of expediency.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have renamed the account. @Randykitty: 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 {{uw-softerblock}}? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Boing! said Zebedee. 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)[reply]

Sounds good :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and Randykitty: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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