User talk:Davidlynchentertainment

Conflict of interest?

Hello Davidlynchentertainment. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Bahador Kharazmi, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

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. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only you. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of what username you choose. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you.

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 14 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

This user does not represent a group or an organization and this is my personal user name! Davidlynchentertainment (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As the username policy puts forward that the username must not appear to be related to a company or organization, and your username appears to relate to an organization named David Lynch Entertainment, plus the fact that your sole edits have been to a single entertainer (as per WP:COI), this username cannot be used on Wikipedia. Even if you change your username using the instructions above, please ensure that you understand WP:COI before making further edits (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 19 February 2012 (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.

I am going to forward this appeal to WP:RFCN since it is plausible but a bit borderline. --Chris (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has now emerged unambiguous evidence that this account is a sockpuppet, or at the least a meatpuppet, so there are very good reasons for not unblocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]