August 2019Edit

 
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 or a web site, 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. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

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 that 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. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

YellowCrawler (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Hello Mike, I don't know if I am doing this right It is so hard to understand how to talk to you - I can certify that I am not a business. I run a Facebook page for Levertons and could not understand why Levertons are not on Wikipedia, as they were in buisness for almost 100 years and I would like to put the record straight

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations To be unblocked:

Please 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. Please see below.:

(Please read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID)
  • you must indicate what areas of Wikipedia you intend to edit in the future

If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia beyond writing about your organisation, then you will not be unblocked. If this is the case, I recommend you consider alternative outlets.


(Any other admin should feel free to amend these conditions or unblock at their discretion.) -- Dlohcierekim 06:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

unblock discussion and renamingEdit

Well, we know you are not a business, but your user name is the name of a business. You say you, "run a Facebook page for Levertons "? What is our relationship with them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with inclusion criteria for article subjects. The criterion for businesses is WP:NCORP. Most of us do not use our real names. If you do, we probably don't need to know that it is. If you request a rename, I can rename you if you ping me by placing {{ping|dlohcierekim}} in your request and sign with 4 ~'s. More info in the unblock decline -- Dlohcierekim 06:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 
This blocked 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.

YellowCrawler (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Requested username:

Request reason:

For me this would be a great name - Sadly I would be sad to see the Leverton be lost to the world if it's history is not re-told - There is a following amongst ex-workers, customers and plant hire fanatics who loved the company and were very sad to see it go - I am not aware of the relationship between Wikipedia and other social media sites, so cannot see why my vain attempts at trying to tell the true history of a defunct company should cause any impact. Especially as some of the info on Wikipedia regarding UK Caterpillar franchises is innnacurate - This will be my last attempt to try to make a valid point and if not accepted there will be no animosity just sadness that for some unknown reason, I will have failed to tell the true history of this pioneering company that against all odds became the largest Cat dealer in Europe and Top 10 dealer in the world - Thanks for reading this anyway

Decline reason:

Wikipedia isn't a social media site, nor is it a memorial site. If your goal is to improve Leverton's social media presence or create a eulogy for the company, you are in entirely the wrong place. Our only criterion for inclusion is whether a company has been written about extensively in reliable sources. Since you still don't seem to understand that, and since you still seem to be here for the sole purpose of telling the world about Leverton, I am declining your appeal. Yunshui  06:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If you just want to tell the world about this business, there are other ways to do that than using Wikipedia(such as on the Facebook page you say you run). Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Independent sources will need to have written about this business in order for it to merit an article; not every business merits an article here(even old ones). Are there any other subjects that you want to write about other than Leverton's? 331dot (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 
This blocked 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.

YellowCrawler (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Requested username:

Request reason:

Well I am astonished! You state that you are only interested in including information that has been written about extensively in reliable sources. How is then that you allowed inclusion of the inacurate article about Jack Olding? Is this really what Wikipedia is about? I personally would have thought that factual true information should take precedence over your high and mighty moral stance to criticise me. My only aim was to inform the world of Levertons invaluable contribution it made to the world for the US Caterpillar tractor company. Perhaps I will be better of comunicating with them direct for inclusion in their section - I thank you for your time but feel you are trying to make my attempt seem trivial and naieve

Decline reason:

I've renamed your account from Leverton Caterpillar. However, this statement is not an unblock request; you will need to tell what it is you will edit about since you won't be permitted to edit about Leverton's, as already stated. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

YellowCrawler (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Thanks for allowing the change to the user name to YellowCrwaler - I'm not sure if I am allowed to add to or edit the Jack Olding page which contains incorrect information, but if so I would like to put some correct info in there - Thank you

Decline reason:

User is unresponsive, unblock request is stale. Yamla (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. I am moving the latest unblock request to the bottom of the page. Having messages out of order makes it much more difficult to follow the thread of a discussion.
  2. The latest unblock request was posted without logging into your account. In future please make sure that you do log into your account, so that we know that it really is you posting messages. Strange though it may seem, we do occasionally get people doing things like posting unblock requests on other people's user names and pretending to be them. If you edit here again using your account, it will be helpful if you confirm that the request really was from you.
  3. It seems that you have come here to edit in good faith, but have unfortunately been caught up by aspects of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that you didn't know about. To anyone unused to how Wikipedia works it is likely to seem perfectly reasonable to edit with the aim "to inform the world of Levertons invaluable contribution it made to the world", but unfortunately that is an example of one of the things that Wikipedia is not for: as explained above, Wikipedia policy is that we have articles only about subjects which already have significant coverage in reliable sources, and telling the world about things which are not yet widely known but which someone thinks should be is outside our remit. Also, the page you created is written in an unambiguously promotional tone, rather than in the neutral way required for Wikipedia.
  4. When I first started editing Wikipedia I thought that Wikipedia was an ideal place to publicise new information that was not yet widely published, or even that had not previously been published at all, and I was astonished when I discovered that there was a policy not to do so. However, over the course of time I came to realise that there are several very good reasons for that policy, such as the impossibility of verifying information which is not already covered in reliable sources. The reasons are perfectly practical, and have nothing to do with a "high and mighty moral stance", nor is anyone criticising you for what you have done: almost all of us, including myself, when we started editing made mistakes about what was acceptable here, and explaining to you that what you have done in good faith was unfortunately not in line with policy is not at all the same thing as criticising you for having done so, let alone moral condemnation.
  5. Saying that we "allowed" inclusion of the inaccurate material about Jack Olding is misunderstanding the nature of Wikipedia. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, unfortunately very often inaccurate information is posted. Wikipedia relies on the fact that most often another editor will notice the inaccuracy and correct it, but there is no guarantee that will happen, so sometimes inaccuracies persist for a long time. Certainly you are more than welcome to edit the article to correct it, provided you can cite reliable sources to support your version, as otherwise we have no way of knowing whether it is your new version or the older one that is right.
  6. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.
  7. Your latest unblock request, which mentions the article on Jack Olding but not the draft on H Leverton & Co, seems to imply that you may be willing to leave Leverton's for now and edit only on other subjects. I will be willing to unblock your account if you explicitly state that you will not make any edits relating to Leverton, at least until you have more extensive experience of editing (say 1000 edits). Also, if you are unblocked, you will need to be understand the requirement to edit from a neutral point of view, so that, for example, it is not acceptable to edit with the purpose of impressing the reader with how wonderful and impressive the progress of a business has been. No matter how strongly one personally feels that a particular subject deserves a good or a bad reputation, it is not part of Wikipedia's remit to promote that view. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:H Leverton & Co.Edit

 

Hello, YellowCrawler. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "H Leverton & Co.".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)