User talk:Dykemanassociates

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

You may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guideline to avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nordgren

I have deleted this article under the G4 criteria of speedy deletion. I would encourage you to read our info on writing your first article, as well as what makes someone notable enough to warrant an article. You should also trying writing the article in a sandbox so that you may work on improving the article before moving it to the mainspace. TN X Man 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 16 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block on the counts for "Spamming or Advertising." My article on Matt Nordgren was in no way intended to be promotional. I tailored the biography off of other Wiki articles on the likes of Mr. Nordgren such as Colt McCoy and Vince Young. Mr. Nordgren has received notable fame recently because of his tie to Audrina Patridge and other celebrity icons. It was only my intent to provide a factually correct, unbiased, source of information about him amongst the libelous celebrity tabloids. It is my understanding that this not only falls under the category of notability, but also a constructive addition of information. I do not promote Nordgren's businesses or accomplishments, I merely state their existence. It appears that perhaps my username is slanting the aims of my article, and understandably so. I am an intern and Mr. Nordgren is the grandson of my employer. The creation of his page is not the result of a transaction, but a favor. If it would be better suited for me to request a change in my username or to create my own personal one for editing, I will happily do so. I respect the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia; which is why I chose it as the medium to write a factual account about a man that has been slandered by other internet sources. I've read the guidelines for creating articles many times and I don't believe now or at the time that I was intentionally violating any of your standards. In addition to his, I can make meaningful contributions to other articles, if I am supplied the means. Thank you for your strict attention and adherence to the prescribed boundaries, of which I respectfully believe myself to be within.

Decline reason:

Your article on Mr. Nordgren was a textbook example of how a conflict of interest can make it extremely difficult to write an article with a neutral point of view. For example, His love and zeal for entrepreneurship began in his preteens...he used his mastery of efficiency and organization... is not neutral and is not encyclopedic; it's appropriate for a press release or some other PR material. Likewise, Matt works with esteemed clients and demonstrated exceptional fundraising skills and organization.. You're too close to the subject to prepare an unbiased article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:54, 17 August 2010 (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.

According to their website, "Dykeman Associates, Inc. is a full-service advertising, public relations and marketing firm. The firm helps clients with the creation, implementation and maintenance of positive programs to show bottom-line results." They are not in the business of impartiality, neutrality, truth or veriability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 17 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again, I think this has more to do with my username than the article itself. I merely used the company name should anyone else choose to contribute to the space. If my language is inappropriate, that is no reason to remove my editing privileges or delete the article on the basis of "questioned notability." I would be happy to submit another to an editor directly to be reviewed. Many of the pages are maintained by those that would also be considered "too close to the subject," but are edited by everyone to ensure neutrality. For instance, I cited the University of Texas at Austin article, which was most certainly written by a school administrator and is probably maintained by one, as is any institution, business, or notable person. The only way these articles can be written in the detail they need is if some "biased" person writes them and an educated contributor follows with edits. With more editing, the article could have been improved, much like all young articles. If you'd like me to use sandbox and a personal username to do so, please let me know.

Decline reason:

Please review WP:COI. It is generally inappropriate to edit articles on subjects with which you are related. But you are right, it is not forbidden. However, it is forbidden to use a company's or organization's name as your username. At a minimum you must choose a new username that fits with our username policy. Please review that and then use the code {{unblock-un|[Your desired username]}} so that you can file for a username change. Please note that this is not an acceptance of your unblock on the terms that you request a change of username - just that your unblock request cannot be properly evaluated until you agree to a username change. The reviewing admin may still decline your request for another reason. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:05, 18 August 2010 (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.

Is this acceptable?

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

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

Decline reason:

procedural decline: failure to answer question from Orange Mike below— Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the suggested name. But please note the following... Here's a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encylopedia article, the subject must be considered to be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a subject that you are trying to create an article about, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to break the 3 important questions above. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. I will try to submit an article that adheres more directly to your guidelines and have an editor review it beforehand. I think my poor choice in username only heightened and magnified the problems of the article, and I would like the chance now to correct them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dykemanassociates (talk • contribs) — Dykemanassociates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It appears that the only purpose for which you want to be here is to write an article about this non-notable person regarding whom you have a conflict of interest. What if you were unblocked only on the condition that you refrain from writing about Nordgren or anybody else connected to Dykeman Associates (whether as client or family member)? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, yes that was my original intent, but editing future articles was not out of the question. I think those terms are reasonable. I agree to them.