User talk:OECD Development Centre

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, 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.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/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 again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} 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, please see how to appeal a block.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

I had already requested this name change and it seemed to have gone through. As per the administrator JohnCD, individuals 'are' permitted to represent accounts where there is a conflict of interest as long as: 1) the edits are the truth and irrefutably factual (I unfortunately don't remember his exact words and cannot pull them up since the account is blocked) and 2) The fact that there is a conflict of interest and the reason behind it are clearly stated. As JohnCD noticed, the major edits I was performing were grammatical and factual (indicating the number of member countries was actually 42 and no longer 39, giving a more precise founding date of 23 October, 1962 as opposed to just 1962, etc.). I had not yet had enough time to write the disclaimer regarding the conflict of interest, and then when I tried to do so it was too late as the account was blocked and the page was deleted. I have, however, followed every rule set forward and provided to me by the administrator JohnCD, who accepted my reasoning and seemed to accept my edits as well, as I hope you will too. Thank you and best regards, OECD Development Centre (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You do not need this account unblocked and you should not be editing from it, its username is unacceptable, as we have explained. Use your new, individual account VED sur seine (talk · contribs). The previous article was deleted for copyright reasons, which the deleting administrator has explained in detail on your new talk page. JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnCD. I've tried using the VED sur seine username and signing in with it, but I receive a message saying it doesn't exist. Maybe a technical problem on Wikipedia's side? Timeline from my side: You instructed that the account name had to be changed, so I did so. Coufeyrac was already taken (by me, actually from many years ago), so I chose VED_sur_seine. I tried to logon using VED_sur_seine, but was denied, so I logged back in using OECD_Development_Centre and the name associated with the account seemed to have changed to VED_sur_seine - as my "signing" using the 4 ~ came up with VED_sur_seine now and VED_sur_seine was now posted at the top of my talk page as well. When I try to search wikipedia for user:VED_sur_seine I get no response. When I search users I do come up with a response that shows that the account was created on 5 October, but I have been unable to log in using it. If it's not a technical error on Wikipedia's side then clearly I am missing something, but I can't think of what. Can you enlighten me please and show me what i'm not seeing? or did i miss a step? Thanks!OECD Development Centre (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd: the account VED sur seine (talk · contribs) certainly exists, and you can click on the links there to see its talk page and contribution history. If you go to its user page User:VED sur seine you are told "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title", but that is only because you have not yetput anything on it. Try again to log in as VED sur seine, copy the username from here into the login screen and use the same password as before: if it doesn't work, copy here the exact message you receive and I will ask the "bureaucrat" (technical term) who renamed the account to help. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!! and it seems to be working now. I don't know what magic you performed, but thanks. I've been trying to log in with the VED account since yesterday! Ok, signing off as OECD Development Centre (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC) signing back in as VED - and now I can post a question to the administrator who deleted the page. thanks for the help and the patience! And I hope you now understand why I continued logging in with the old account - I wasn't trying to be an... unpleasant user. ;) Best regards, Ved sur seine[reply]

Part 2 - Alas, I fear I may have spoken too quickly. When I signed in as VED_sur_seine I got the following message: (content removed, I understand the problem - JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Calgon, take me away!!! Any ideas? I would have sent this from VED, but alas, i can't edit my talk page or add to yours from there. Thanks again, JohnCD! OECD Development Centre (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You got caught in an WP:AUTOBLOCK, a mechanism to ensure that a blocked user doesn't simply create a new account immediately by blocking for 24 hours the IP he edited from. I have reached into the bowels of the machinery and cleared it, and you should be OK now on VED sur seine. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason James BWatson deleted the old article is that when he looked at the copyright terms of the source pages they included restrictions like "All requests for commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org." which are not compatible with Wikipedia's extremely broad CC-BY-SA license which permits anyone to copy, modify and use for any purpose including commercial. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]