Hello Jdobypr. 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 Edubb, 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 ensuring their edits are verified by 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:

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. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:53, 28 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for adding historical and verifiable information on a client. The information is not being used for promotional purposes but rather to create an accurate record of the activity and contributions to the music industry by my client. We entered the information in APA format and proper attribution. Had I NOT been blocked we could have begun entering the discography and record label/distribution information, etc. but as soon as we began entries on the site we were attacked by TeaDrinker regarding the notability and validity of the client. All information entered is verifiable according to instructions and nothing included violates any copyright laws.

Decline reason:

Hi, there are two issues involved here. One is that your user name is the name of a corporation (J Dorby PR). The second is that you are engaged in activities that could reasonably be considered to be promoting the clients of J Dorby PR. See Wikipedia policy on this matter.
Simultaneously, there is a deletion discussion on the notability of the subject of the article you edited. Additionally, the text you added was a poorly formatted and unexplained list of links. That is not in keeping with an encyclopedia article.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a soapbox or means of promotion. However, should you wish continue to add neutral (and, please, properly formatted and appropriate) content to an article please respond using the ((Unblock-un)) template. Please, when doing so, provide a list of articles you want to improve and say how you want to improve them so that your intended contributions to Wikipedia can be assessed. Thanks, --RA (talk) 19:19, 29 April 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.

Another unblock request

I have reviewed the rules regarding the use of my company name in my account and the appearance of a COI which I totally refute. The sole purpose for my entries are as a LOG of information. Would the certificate from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office for the cultural term created by this group also be considered unreliable? If we need to include run dates for the links, I can totally understand that and will correct the omissions (although the items in question are STILL actively in rotation); also as regards outside references would we want to include text from the articles and THEN provide the link with proper attribution? It is not our goal to disrespect the purpose of Wikipedia but we would like the opportunity to correct our errors so that the group in question has a fair opportunity to be listed on Wikipedia. The articles I would improve revolve around the group EDUBB so that they meet the criteria of this outlet. Although for academic purposes Wikipedia is not considered a reputable source for citations, the world at large does recognize the outlet as do we.Jdobypr (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More