Egersund
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, 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 it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use 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 Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization 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, or organization. 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 or organization. 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}}below this message box. - 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.
Donating copyrighted text
editHi. I just wanted to add to the above that no matter who submitted it, we would be unable to accept the contents of [1] onto Wikipedia, or to create a derivative of it, without first verifying the licensing of that material. It is marked "©2006-2007" at the website. Since we do not currently have a method in place to verify the identity of account holders at account creation, we must verify such donations through external processes.
The simplest way to verify is to place a release on that external website putting the material into public domain or co-licensing it under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which permit modification and reuse, even commercially, as long as authorship credit is given. This release is irrevocable and must continue to be displayed, or the material may need to be removed. A statement such as the following would be sufficient: "The contents of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts."
Alternatively, you could choose to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. (There is a boilerplate release form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful.) But there is an additional complication here in that the article has been deleted under speedy deletion criteria for not giving indication of the encyclopedic notability of the club. This doesn't mean that the club isn't important or that it doesn't meet inclusion guidelines, just that an administrator did not see any indication in the article to suggest it. The best way to address such concerns is to provide plenty of reliable sources in an article that are not authored by the organization (such as its website or press releases). Good sources might be newspaper or magazine articles or independent industry websites.
Since we can't restore the article immediately, your best bet may be to place the release at the website, which will allow other contributors to freely draw from it in creating a new article with additional sourcing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)