A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cocktail (MVVM framework) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocktail (MVVM framework) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended 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, website 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 Wikipedia's FAQ for 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.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about 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, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

-- Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Here are a few key questions:

• Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
• Do you understand conflict of interest?
• Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the three important principles above.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Thank you Ronhjones.
• Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
• Yes. I have educated myself on possible conflict of interest and will adhere to the Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide.

I assure you that it was my intention to avoid a conflict of interest all along. By using the company name I was trying to be transparent. The article BreezeJS conformed to standards set by other JavaScript libraries and was written without bias. I thought I had written a brief reference article that detailed what the JavaScript library was about and intentionally stayed away form any type of sales or promotion content. I now understand that the company name is a violation of the username policy, and that rather than adding transparency, likely flagged an informative and standards-compliant article for deletion, and I will no longer use it.

• Regarding the article being notable, I provided three reliable and independent sources and presumed it was a valid article based on similar articles referencing other JavaScript libraries. The Cocktail article (deleted appropriately months ago) did not stand up to the notability test. I think that BreezeJS does.

The username Johnlantz ( talk · contribs) is already registered. Please choose another username. - filelake shoe  15:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply

It appears johnwlantz ( talk · contribs) is available. Let's go with that if possible.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

I'm now aware that the username, IdeaBlade, violates the naming policy and understand why the account has been blocked. I respectfully request that my IP be unblocked so I may contribute to Wikipedia as a private person and not as a representative of my company. Additionally, I am unclear why the BreezeJS topic was deleted. Yes, I work for the company that developed the library, but I purposefully wrote the article to be informative, not as a blatant promotion. It followed the template for JavaScript libraries and provide identical information found on other library articles. (See AngularJS, KnockoutJS, etc., etc.) Even more surprising, BreezeJS was also removed from the list of Javascript libraries, possibly because it used an external link rather than referencing an article ... something I thought I was helping to avoid by writing an informative article, complete with references, on the Breeze library.

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. - filelake shoe  18:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC) reply