Hello, Woland2k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 06:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (July 23)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! Woland2k,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Sulfurboy (
talk)
18:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (August 1)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
|
Hello! Woland2k,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Fiddle
Faddle
06:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (August 23)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
|
Hello! Woland2k,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Onel5969
TT me
13:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (September 6)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (September 6)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (September 9)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Virto Commerce
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Virto Commerce, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MONARCH ♔ 12:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Woland2k. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of
conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on
neutral point of view and
what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a
black hat practice.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Woland2k. The template {{ Paid}} can be used for this purpose. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You said you were not paid for writing the article, that isn't quite the same as saying you have no conflict of interest, since you helped write the code. You should declare that interest on the article's talk page.
I'm not convinced that it meets the notability guidelines. 200 downloads a day seems pretty insignificant these days. The editor who nominated the article for deletion thought that the tone was promotional, and I agreed. There is a lot bout what it can do (and why does it need separate sections for updates and integration?), and too little on why it is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article.
It's not the worse I've seen, and if you want to try again and think you can address the issues above, I'll restore the deleted draft. Let me know. Please don't remove reviewers' comments again though, that does not look like good faith editing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but I suggest you act quickly. The article could be nominate for deletion again, including by the person who did so last time
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?
10:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jimfbleak yeah, I know, not sure what I did wrong that deserved a indefinite ban, maybe it is because deletion request was removed? But I didn't remove it or anything else besides article section itself. Hopefully it gets resolved shortly. Woland2k ( talk) 06:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but I suggest you act quickly. The article could be nominate for deletion again, including by the person who did so last time
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?
10:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Guy (
Help!)
22:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)- JzG|Guy, can you please explain the ban? Here is my story. I talked to an editor who modified my previous post and said I will correct the materials that looked like advertising and promised to work more on the article to bring reliable sources and references. I was just in the process of doing that, reading
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I made an earlier mistake of removing comments and promised not to do that again and haven't. Also I didn't submit this article to be published since then and won't be submitting until I find more reliable sources to backup the notability according to the notability for a product article. I'll be removing other not so relevant links as well. My original article was based on similar product
/info/en/?search=NopCommerce but it doesn't look like similar references used there are enough. Let me know what did I do wrong, thanks.
Woland2k (
talk)
23:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- You claim that you're working improvements, But in fact you never made any “improvements” you have continued to re-submit the drafts multiple for review without making further improvement, You wiped out the
Afc declined template left by
other reviewers and you tried to convince the reviewer that the article was newly submitted without any decline(s). I have done searches on this topic's
notability and didn't find anything positive in search result regarding the notability and
significant of claim, I don't think the company passes
WP:CORP, Although your
NopCommerce article did have reliable sources, But
Virto Commerce didn't have any reliable source, mostly the references are linked sites like Github, Microsoft's download page and other
self-published blogs, these are NOT reliable sources.
MONARCH
♔
07:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did modify article and added more references to different sources as well as extending content with more encyclopedia type of content (after studing other published product articles). My understanding was that those references will make it more notable. You claim that I tried to hide prior comments and was dishonest, that is not true. I was just cleaning up the article and those comments seem distracting. As soon as another user mentioned that I shouldn't be removing comments from the article body I stopped and apologized for the behaviour (i thought that history was preserved anyway in the article history so there was no need for it to be displayed right in the article, guess that is not true). I submitted article 5 times in 5 months? Guess that is a lot. I will not submit article again until the links are verified through the talk page instead. As for the sources, we should discuss them in another topic, I'd like to point out some more, for instance
codeproject and
habrahabr articles (both sites have editorial requirements and review procedures).
NopCommerce references are mostly dead links btw
Woland2k (
talk)
08:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot clean up the comments or decline history, It's the job of a reviewer, they will remove it when it's ready to move to the mainspace. If you want to get unblocked you should
appeal the block and
apologise to the reviewers for inappropriate behaviour after your ban appeal gets accepted by respective administrator. Hope you assume
good faith and accept the
five pillars.
MONARCH
♔
08:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I understood that as soon as it got mentioned earlier and I do
apologise to the reviewers. I still don't understand such snap indefinite ban and overall reaction, it seems very hostile for the first time user like me. I submitted the ban appeal yesterday (below) and still waiting on a response.
Woland2k (
talk)
09:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that Wikipedia administrator takes things very seriously for first-time users who violate
basic policies and guidelines will result in getting the account blocked, But
indefinite block doesn't mean permanent, It's temporary until a user settles the issue with an administrator, and the account will get unblocked. So you basically need to seek for a
second chance, I would suggest you to wait for six months before appealing the ban, After six-months you can come back again and appeal the ban and apologise to the community (you can apologise in the {{
unblock}} template) that you will not make any inappropriate behaviour like you did at
Draft:Virto Commerce i.e removing comments and decline histories, is a serious behaviour of
bad faith. For now I would suggest you to withdraw the block appeal for now, Come back again in six months and appeal it.
MONARCH
♔
13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what issue I had with an administrator, it looked like admin spent 2 min before banning another user to ban my account, that is all it took. Don't think he got too deep into the situation. Is there a policy somewhere that I have to now wait for 6 months? Don't think wikipedia is a bureaucracy like that.
- The problem is that Wikipedia administrator takes things very seriously for first-time users who violate
basic policies and guidelines will result in getting the account blocked, But
indefinite block doesn't mean permanent, It's temporary until a user settles the issue with an administrator, and the account will get unblocked. So you basically need to seek for a
second chance, I would suggest you to wait for six months before appealing the ban, After six-months you can come back again and appeal the ban and apologise to the community (you can apologise in the {{
unblock}} template) that you will not make any inappropriate behaviour like you did at
Draft:Virto Commerce i.e removing comments and decline histories, is a serious behaviour of
bad faith. For now I would suggest you to withdraw the block appeal for now, Come back again in six months and appeal it.
MONARCH
♔
13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I understood that as soon as it got mentioned earlier and I do
apologise to the reviewers. I still don't understand such snap indefinite ban and overall reaction, it seems very hostile for the first time user like me. I submitted the ban appeal yesterday (below) and still waiting on a response.
Woland2k (
talk)
09:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot clean up the comments or decline history, It's the job of a reviewer, they will remove it when it's ready to move to the mainspace. If you want to get unblocked you should
appeal the block and
apologise to the reviewers for inappropriate behaviour after your ban appeal gets accepted by respective administrator. Hope you assume
good faith and accept the
five pillars.
MONARCH
♔
08:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did modify article and added more references to different sources as well as extending content with more encyclopedia type of content (after studing other published product articles). My understanding was that those references will make it more notable. You claim that I tried to hide prior comments and was dishonest, that is not true. I was just cleaning up the article and those comments seem distracting. As soon as another user mentioned that I shouldn't be removing comments from the article body I stopped and apologized for the behaviour (i thought that history was preserved anyway in the article history so there was no need for it to be displayed right in the article, guess that is not true). I submitted article 5 times in 5 months? Guess that is a lot. I will not submit article again until the links are verified through the talk page instead. As for the sources, we should discuss them in another topic, I'd like to point out some more, for instance
codeproject and
habrahabr articles (both sites have editorial requirements and review procedures).
NopCommerce references are mostly dead links btw
Woland2k (
talk)
08:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You claim that you're working improvements, But in fact you never made any “improvements” you have continued to re-submit the drafts multiple for review without making further improvement, You wiped out the
Afc declined template left by
other reviewers and you tried to convince the reviewer that the article was newly submitted without any decline(s). I have done searches on this topic's
notability and didn't find anything positive in search result regarding the notability and
significant of claim, I don't think the company passes
WP:CORP, Although your
NopCommerce article did have reliable sources, But
Virto Commerce didn't have any reliable source, mostly the references are linked sites like Github, Microsoft's download page and other
self-published blogs, these are NOT reliable sources.
MONARCH
♔
07:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- JzG|Guy, can you please explain the ban? Here is my story. I talked to an editor who modified my previous post and said I will correct the materials that looked like advertising and promised to work more on the article to bring reliable sources and references. I was just in the process of doing that, reading
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I made an earlier mistake of removing comments and promised not to do that again and haven't. Also I didn't submit this article to be published since then and won't be submitting until I find more reliable sources to backup the notability according to the notability for a product article. I'll be removing other not so relevant links as well. My original article was based on similar product
/info/en/?search=NopCommerce but it doesn't look like similar references used there are enough. Let me know what did I do wrong, thanks.
Woland2k (
talk)
23:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, You can take a look here: WP:SO they have a policy for these who were affected by indefinite block you can check that WP:SO link, I suggest you not to appeal this case now, You may get negative response from administrator if you continue to appeal this case. The best choice is that you should wait at least for six months. I know this is a long time, but you need to learn the basic policies and guidelines at least to avoid getting banned in future. Any articles that don't abide by WP:GNG and WP:RS has a high chance of getting it rejected like the one you did at Draft:Virto Commerce with bunch of unreliable sources is simply unacceptable. The bureaucrats usually don't take in charge of block/unblock, They're working on Administrator arrangements and site maintenance, If you feel that you're being treated unfairly by an administrator you should consider emailing WP:ARBCOM about your ban, The judge at ArbCom will decide your verdict whether you should be given second chance... Good Luck! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 12:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I talked to an editor who modified my previous post and said I will correct the materials that looked like advertising and promised to work more on the article to bring reliable sources and references. I was just in the process of doing that, reading /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I made an earlier mistake of removing comments and promised not to do that again and haven't. Also I didn't submit this article to be published since then and won't be submitting until I find more reliable sources to backup the notability according to the notability for a product article. I'll be removing other not so relevant links as well. My original article was based on similar product /info/en/?search=NopCommerce but it doesn't look like similar references used there are enough. Let me know what did I do wrong, thanks. Woland2k ( talk) 23:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't think it is a good investment of everybody's time to unblock you as long as the only thing you're here is to write about something you have a conflict of interest about. People have already spent lots of time on you - even if you will eventually complete a policy-compliant article, people who would need to help you could write ten other articles in that time. Therefore, I feel that unblocking you would be a net negative to the project. Max Semenik ( talk) 22:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
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.
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm not here to write only this one article (and I will not submit this draft anymore), in the past I corrected some other articles as well and my intention was to participate in many different article discussions becoming much more active on wikipedia. So I will bring value to the wikipedia community and especially since I was educated on many aspects of creating artilcle I feel that this experience could make me a much better contributor. Please consider unblocking my account so I can demonstrate my good intentions. Woland2k (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocked per consensus at ANI. Drmies ( talk) 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am willing to consider unblocking you, but at the request of the blocking administrator I have posted about your unblock request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sorry that your request is taking so long to be dealt with, but I hope there can be a definite yes or no soon. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- thanks, yeah I noticed that you posted on the admin page Woland2k ( talk) 07:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Draft:Virto Commerce
Draft:Virto Commerce, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Virto Commerce and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Draft:Virto Commerce during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
MONARCH
♔
06:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
MONARCH I didn't remove deletion request, I talked to the admin that deleted the article originally (as it is recommended by the rules) and he explained to me the reasons and agreed to undelete it and remove the badge for speedy deletion, you can see that in the history/talk page. He also explained what needs to be removed and showed me link to an article explaining notable references. I now educated myself on those topics and will not submit a draft until I can get the notable sources for an article. In the meantime my account was banned and I can't reply directly to the deletion article. This whole process seems to be very hostile and can be avoided with simple explanation of the process.
Woland2k (
talk)
06:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly ignored the notes given by other reviewers, You have tried to hide the
prior comments left by reviewers, as well deleting off the
Afc submissions, You're assuming
bad faith. I don't think you're honest, You tried to delete the history of
previously declined submissions. Is that what you're trying to convince a reviewer to push to this article to mainspace? By clearing the past decline history to show other reviewers that the article was newly submitted?
MONARCH
♔
07:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- MONARCH I did modify article and added more references to different sources as well as extending content with more encyclopedia type of content (after studing other published product articles). My understanding was that those references will make it more notable. I said that I will review and change them, remove not used. You claim that I tried to hide prior comments and was dishonest, that is not true. I was just cleaning up the article and those comments seem distracting. As soon as another user mentioned that I shouldn't be removing comments from the article body I stopped and apologized for the behaviour (i thought that history was preserved anyway in the article history so there was no need for it to be displayed right in the article, guess that is not true). I will not submit article again until the links are verified through the talk page instead. Woland2k ( talk) 07:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly ignored the notes given by other reviewers, You have tried to hide the
prior comments left by reviewers, as well deleting off the
Afc submissions, You're assuming
bad faith. I don't think you're honest, You tried to delete the history of
previously declined submissions. Is that what you're trying to convince a reviewer to push to this article to mainspace? By clearing the past decline history to show other reviewers that the article was newly submitted?
MONARCH
♔
07:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not favour any one national variety of English. Sometimes there is a good reason why an article should preferentially use one form rather than another: for example, in the article Abraham Lincoln it is natural to use US English, while in Winston Churchill it is natural to use British English. However, in the absence of specific reason to change things, the original form should be retained, and it is considered unhelpful to change from one variety to another without good reason, as you apparently did at Online shopping. If you do have a good reason for such a change, you should briefly explain that reason in an edit summary to prevent reverting of your change by an editor who is not aware of your reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, understood I thought it look very odd to have behaviour instead of behavior as I haven't seen that spelling for quite a while. I will pay closer attention next time.
I was one of those who supported unblocking you to give you another chance, but your editing since the unblock has already led me to think that you may have had your second chance and blown it. As you know, you were blocked substantially because you appeared to be editing to promote "Virto Commerce". I was therefore astonished to see that your very first edit after being unblocked was to add a mention of "Virto Commerce" to an article. My first thought was that I should give you a friendly mention of the fact that doing so was dubious, and similar editing might lead to a restoration of the block. However, I then saw that your second edit since being unblocked was to remove mention of another product from an article, with the edit summary "removed product that has no article". Since your first edit had been the addition of a mention of a product which had no article, for that second edit to follow immediately seemed remarkable. The product you removed had been the subject of an article which had been deleted, while the product you added had never got beyond the spam draft which you created. It could well be thought that you are taking advantage of the unblock to return to promoting your product, and also that you are applying different standards to that product than you apply to other products. Can you tell me any reason why I should not restore the block?
@ JzG, Philg88, Drmies, and Karl Dickman: Since you were all involved in one way or another in the discussions that led to the unblock, you may have an opinion about this. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The good faith extended to Woland2k reflects well on those involved. Woland2k's subsequent edits are either spam or
WP:POINT. With due respect and appreciation for the exemplary conduct of the above, @
JamesBWatson,
Philg88,
Drmies, and
Karl Dickman:, I have re-blocked based on subsequent edits as this person is clearly only here for one thing. As before, I am happy to have this reviewed and overturned if people think the problem has been adequately understood and addressed.
Guy (
Help!)
17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have no quarrel with it, Guy. I'm interested to know, for instance, how the editor who makes this edit, where they remove something that has no article, also makes this edit, where they add something that also has no article. No, I'm hypothetically interested: the only explanation is self-interest. Drmies ( talk) 17:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I added the product to the azure websites page (with no link to an article) as it is one of the web apps available on azure websites (
/info/en/?search=Microsoft_Azure_Web_Sites, this article actually needs to be renamed to Microsoft Azure Web Apps as name changed by MS) and the article contains a list of them, here is the reference:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/marketplace/web-applications/all/?page=3. NopCommerce is also on that list. Why is that wrong? Why would the comprehensive list of "create a site based on one of several available pre-configured images from the website gallery:" contain all the pre-configured images but specifically ommit Virto Commerce? If it is about notability, it makes no sense at all as "HTML5 Empty Site" and "PHP Empty Site" are listed and these are just placeholders, so it is comprehensive list of all pre-configured apps not just notable as provided by azure marketplace. There is no bias here, it is simply the fact it is one of the pre-configured web apps available and if article exists that lists all the apps it is supposed to be listed as well. Am I wrong here? Please explain. Regarding NopCommerce article, it is all together another topic, I couldn't find a reason why that article was deleted (yes it was created by the owner, but so is azure websites article) but I honestly think that it should not have been as one can find many references to that product. And references will be from very reliable sources for instance practicalecommerce.com (
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/970-Cart-of-the-Week-nopCommerce). Since it doesn't have an article and is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia, it should't be listed with a link on "Online Shopping" article, especially not under open source product (it is a commercial open source, and not licensed under any recognized open source license).
I'm not spammer (
talk)
17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Woland2k, it is possible that you really honestly don't understand what is illogical about what you have written there, so I will point out just one aspect of it. You ask "Why would the comprehensive list of "create a site based on one of several available pre-configured images from the website gallery:" contain all the pre-configured images but specifically ommit Virto Commerce?" but nobody had said anything about whether the list should or should not contain Virto Commerce, about whether it should or should not contain all the other items it lists, or even about whether the list should exist at all: what had been mentioned was that the reason which you gave for removing other content applies equally to content which you added, the glaringly obvious difference being that one case concerned your own product, and the other didn't. If you disagree with someone, but, instead of explaining why you disagree with what they have said, you explain why you disagree with something else that they have not said, it is called a
straw man argument, and it is invalid. My own opinion is that the list shouldn't be there at all, with or without Virto Commerce, but I didn't mention that, because it was irrelevant: I was not dealing with any issue relating to whether that list should exist, and if so what it should contain, I was dealing with the issue of your double standards. You would be more likely to persuade other people to accept your point of view if you did the same: address the relevant points, not irrelevant ones. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ JamesBWatson: I'm not following my standards as they are irrelevant on WP, which was made perfectly clear to me before. I'm trying to follow rules established by WP. I'm very familiar and utilize/contributed to Virto Commerce, NopCommerce, EPiServer, AspDotNetStorefront, SiteCore so it was very easy for me to see the list was missing the product I'm familiar with so I added it (I didn't create a link as it is not notable and doesn't have an article). Is that wrong? Should I have posted in the comments section of that article before modifying an article? (I checked talk page for it and it hasn't been updated for a while and many wikipedia articles simply say be bold and modify). I reviewed articles on many cms/commerce products, for instance EPiServer page has only self published references and other issues which I combined and tried to format better. This is my area of expertise, I'm not comfortable editing what I know little about. And after thinking a bit more, I agree with your assessment that the azure website list should simply not exist as there will be more and more products added and it won't be possible to maintain it (it should/can be discussed on the article talk page). I understand your point about NopCommerce being removed (i added virto commerce on one page and then removed nopcommerce on the other) but here is what happened: while reading that article I was alerted by red empty link NopCommerce, which was a surprise that the article didn't exist (I searched for it, tried to see history of why it was removed or maybe it was moved somewhere but wasn't able to find anything), so I removed the bad link in accordance with a WP:REDDEAL "The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article.", again how should I have proceeded? My intention is not to attack products as a revenge nor it is to spam but to fix issues as it related to various shopping carts, ecommerce platforms, content management sections of WP and to provide reliable content that follows rules established by WP. I'm here to help ( talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Woland2k, it is possible that you really honestly don't understand what is illogical about what you have written there, so I will point out just one aspect of it. You ask "Why would the comprehensive list of "create a site based on one of several available pre-configured images from the website gallery:" contain all the pre-configured images but specifically ommit Virto Commerce?" but nobody had said anything about whether the list should or should not contain Virto Commerce, about whether it should or should not contain all the other items it lists, or even about whether the list should exist at all: what had been mentioned was that the reason which you gave for removing other content applies equally to content which you added, the glaringly obvious difference being that one case concerned your own product, and the other didn't. If you disagree with someone, but, instead of explaining why you disagree with what they have said, you explain why you disagree with something else that they have not said, it is called a
straw man argument, and it is invalid. My own opinion is that the list shouldn't be there at all, with or without Virto Commerce, but I didn't mention that, because it was irrelevant: I was not dealing with any issue relating to whether that list should exist, and if so what it should contain, I was dealing with the issue of your double standards. You would be more likely to persuade other people to accept your point of view if you did the same: address the relevant points, not irrelevant ones. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @
JzG,
Philg88,
Drmies, and
Karl Dickman: I am 100% in support of the re-block. It is clear that following the unblocking, the editor came back with two aims: (1) more promotion of his product, and (2) attacking other products in a spirit of revenge. This is an excellent example of one of the two advantages of unblocking in a case like this: if the editor has no intention of editing constructively then unblocking gives him or her a chance to demonstrate that, so that there is no longer any doubt about whether the block should remain. (The other advantage, of course, applies in those cases where the editor does start editing constructively.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @
JamesBWatson: Sigh. I can't say I'm surprised at the turn of events but I'm disappointed that
Woland2k didn't take the chance to start over. No question in my view that the reblock is 100% warranted.
Philg88 ♦
talk
20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ Philg88: Agreed: disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Aye. There
should be a commentary on it.
Guy (
Help!)
21:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ JzG: I added text "Virto Commerce" to the list where it belong (RS provided), I didn't add any link nor did I add any fluff or opinion. Hows that a WP:SPAM?. The second removal was in accordance with a WP:REDDEAL policy, article was removed so is the link. Explain what rule did I break to deserve instant permanent ban? I'm here to help ( talk) 05:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- @
JamesBWatson: Sigh. I can't say I'm surprised at the turn of events but I'm disappointed that
Woland2k didn't take the chance to start over. No question in my view that the reblock is 100% warranted.
Philg88 ♦
talk
20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I got blocked as an editor after this edit, where I removed something that has no article WP:REDDEAL (article was deleted recently), also made this edit, where I added something that also has no article but belongs to a list (reference: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/marketplace/web-applications/all/?page=3). I believe my block is a bit harsh and doesn't qualify as a WP:SPAM. Please consider unblocking me.
Decline reason:
Per admins' discussion here. Max Semenik ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My last block was almost a year ago and claimed that I was here for just advertising. I believe I served my time and now requesting to be unblocked. My previous changes were minor and I thought I followed wikipedia policies like WP:REDDEAL and wasn't spamming or retaliating. That said, from now on I will discuss sensitive changes first before considering making any edit. I still believe I can offer a lot of value to Wikipedia. Please consider unblocking me.
Accept reason:
I'll unblock you. I hope we won't end up discussing what "I won't write about VC" was supposed to mean. Huon ( talk) 00:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you explicitly agree to not write anything about Virto Commerce?
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I won't write about VC, as I mentioned I won't make any controversial changes without first discussion them on the talk page.
- Thanks for the unblock. I'm here to help ( talk) 00:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I won't write about VC, as I mentioned I won't make any controversial changes without first discussion them on the talk page.
Hello, Woland2k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 06:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (July 23)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
|
Hello! Woland2k,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Sulfurboy (
talk)
18:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (August 1)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
|
Hello! Woland2k,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Fiddle
Faddle
06:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (August 23)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
|
Hello! Woland2k,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Onel5969
TT me
13:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (September 6)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (September 6)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: Virto Commerce (September 9)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Virto Commerce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Virto Commerce
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Virto Commerce, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MONARCH ♔ 12:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Woland2k. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of
conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on
neutral point of view and
what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a
black hat practice.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Woland2k. The template {{ Paid}} can be used for this purpose. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You said you were not paid for writing the article, that isn't quite the same as saying you have no conflict of interest, since you helped write the code. You should declare that interest on the article's talk page.
I'm not convinced that it meets the notability guidelines. 200 downloads a day seems pretty insignificant these days. The editor who nominated the article for deletion thought that the tone was promotional, and I agreed. There is a lot bout what it can do (and why does it need separate sections for updates and integration?), and too little on why it is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article.
It's not the worse I've seen, and if you want to try again and think you can address the issues above, I'll restore the deleted draft. Let me know. Please don't remove reviewers' comments again though, that does not look like good faith editing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but I suggest you act quickly. The article could be nominate for deletion again, including by the person who did so last time
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?
10:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jimfbleak yeah, I know, not sure what I did wrong that deserved a indefinite ban, maybe it is because deletion request was removed? But I didn't remove it or anything else besides article section itself. Hopefully it gets resolved shortly. Woland2k ( talk) 06:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but I suggest you act quickly. The article could be nominate for deletion again, including by the person who did so last time
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?
10:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Virto Commerce has a new comment
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Guy (
Help!)
22:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)- JzG|Guy, can you please explain the ban? Here is my story. I talked to an editor who modified my previous post and said I will correct the materials that looked like advertising and promised to work more on the article to bring reliable sources and references. I was just in the process of doing that, reading
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I made an earlier mistake of removing comments and promised not to do that again and haven't. Also I didn't submit this article to be published since then and won't be submitting until I find more reliable sources to backup the notability according to the notability for a product article. I'll be removing other not so relevant links as well. My original article was based on similar product
/info/en/?search=NopCommerce but it doesn't look like similar references used there are enough. Let me know what did I do wrong, thanks.
Woland2k (
talk)
23:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- You claim that you're working improvements, But in fact you never made any “improvements” you have continued to re-submit the drafts multiple for review without making further improvement, You wiped out the
Afc declined template left by
other reviewers and you tried to convince the reviewer that the article was newly submitted without any decline(s). I have done searches on this topic's
notability and didn't find anything positive in search result regarding the notability and
significant of claim, I don't think the company passes
WP:CORP, Although your
NopCommerce article did have reliable sources, But
Virto Commerce didn't have any reliable source, mostly the references are linked sites like Github, Microsoft's download page and other
self-published blogs, these are NOT reliable sources.
MONARCH
♔
07:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did modify article and added more references to different sources as well as extending content with more encyclopedia type of content (after studing other published product articles). My understanding was that those references will make it more notable. You claim that I tried to hide prior comments and was dishonest, that is not true. I was just cleaning up the article and those comments seem distracting. As soon as another user mentioned that I shouldn't be removing comments from the article body I stopped and apologized for the behaviour (i thought that history was preserved anyway in the article history so there was no need for it to be displayed right in the article, guess that is not true). I submitted article 5 times in 5 months? Guess that is a lot. I will not submit article again until the links are verified through the talk page instead. As for the sources, we should discuss them in another topic, I'd like to point out some more, for instance
codeproject and
habrahabr articles (both sites have editorial requirements and review procedures).
NopCommerce references are mostly dead links btw
Woland2k (
talk)
08:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot clean up the comments or decline history, It's the job of a reviewer, they will remove it when it's ready to move to the mainspace. If you want to get unblocked you should
appeal the block and
apologise to the reviewers for inappropriate behaviour after your ban appeal gets accepted by respective administrator. Hope you assume
good faith and accept the
five pillars.
MONARCH
♔
08:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I understood that as soon as it got mentioned earlier and I do
apologise to the reviewers. I still don't understand such snap indefinite ban and overall reaction, it seems very hostile for the first time user like me. I submitted the ban appeal yesterday (below) and still waiting on a response.
Woland2k (
talk)
09:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that Wikipedia administrator takes things very seriously for first-time users who violate
basic policies and guidelines will result in getting the account blocked, But
indefinite block doesn't mean permanent, It's temporary until a user settles the issue with an administrator, and the account will get unblocked. So you basically need to seek for a
second chance, I would suggest you to wait for six months before appealing the ban, After six-months you can come back again and appeal the ban and apologise to the community (you can apologise in the {{
unblock}} template) that you will not make any inappropriate behaviour like you did at
Draft:Virto Commerce i.e removing comments and decline histories, is a serious behaviour of
bad faith. For now I would suggest you to withdraw the block appeal for now, Come back again in six months and appeal it.
MONARCH
♔
13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what issue I had with an administrator, it looked like admin spent 2 min before banning another user to ban my account, that is all it took. Don't think he got too deep into the situation. Is there a policy somewhere that I have to now wait for 6 months? Don't think wikipedia is a bureaucracy like that.
- The problem is that Wikipedia administrator takes things very seriously for first-time users who violate
basic policies and guidelines will result in getting the account blocked, But
indefinite block doesn't mean permanent, It's temporary until a user settles the issue with an administrator, and the account will get unblocked. So you basically need to seek for a
second chance, I would suggest you to wait for six months before appealing the ban, After six-months you can come back again and appeal the ban and apologise to the community (you can apologise in the {{
unblock}} template) that you will not make any inappropriate behaviour like you did at
Draft:Virto Commerce i.e removing comments and decline histories, is a serious behaviour of
bad faith. For now I would suggest you to withdraw the block appeal for now, Come back again in six months and appeal it.
MONARCH
♔
13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I understood that as soon as it got mentioned earlier and I do
apologise to the reviewers. I still don't understand such snap indefinite ban and overall reaction, it seems very hostile for the first time user like me. I submitted the ban appeal yesterday (below) and still waiting on a response.
Woland2k (
talk)
09:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot clean up the comments or decline history, It's the job of a reviewer, they will remove it when it's ready to move to the mainspace. If you want to get unblocked you should
appeal the block and
apologise to the reviewers for inappropriate behaviour after your ban appeal gets accepted by respective administrator. Hope you assume
good faith and accept the
five pillars.
MONARCH
♔
08:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did modify article and added more references to different sources as well as extending content with more encyclopedia type of content (after studing other published product articles). My understanding was that those references will make it more notable. You claim that I tried to hide prior comments and was dishonest, that is not true. I was just cleaning up the article and those comments seem distracting. As soon as another user mentioned that I shouldn't be removing comments from the article body I stopped and apologized for the behaviour (i thought that history was preserved anyway in the article history so there was no need for it to be displayed right in the article, guess that is not true). I submitted article 5 times in 5 months? Guess that is a lot. I will not submit article again until the links are verified through the talk page instead. As for the sources, we should discuss them in another topic, I'd like to point out some more, for instance
codeproject and
habrahabr articles (both sites have editorial requirements and review procedures).
NopCommerce references are mostly dead links btw
Woland2k (
talk)
08:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You claim that you're working improvements, But in fact you never made any “improvements” you have continued to re-submit the drafts multiple for review without making further improvement, You wiped out the
Afc declined template left by
other reviewers and you tried to convince the reviewer that the article was newly submitted without any decline(s). I have done searches on this topic's
notability and didn't find anything positive in search result regarding the notability and
significant of claim, I don't think the company passes
WP:CORP, Although your
NopCommerce article did have reliable sources, But
Virto Commerce didn't have any reliable source, mostly the references are linked sites like Github, Microsoft's download page and other
self-published blogs, these are NOT reliable sources.
MONARCH
♔
07:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- JzG|Guy, can you please explain the ban? Here is my story. I talked to an editor who modified my previous post and said I will correct the materials that looked like advertising and promised to work more on the article to bring reliable sources and references. I was just in the process of doing that, reading
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I made an earlier mistake of removing comments and promised not to do that again and haven't. Also I didn't submit this article to be published since then and won't be submitting until I find more reliable sources to backup the notability according to the notability for a product article. I'll be removing other not so relevant links as well. My original article was based on similar product
/info/en/?search=NopCommerce but it doesn't look like similar references used there are enough. Let me know what did I do wrong, thanks.
Woland2k (
talk)
23:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, You can take a look here: WP:SO they have a policy for these who were affected by indefinite block you can check that WP:SO link, I suggest you not to appeal this case now, You may get negative response from administrator if you continue to appeal this case. The best choice is that you should wait at least for six months. I know this is a long time, but you need to learn the basic policies and guidelines at least to avoid getting banned in future. Any articles that don't abide by WP:GNG and WP:RS has a high chance of getting it rejected like the one you did at Draft:Virto Commerce with bunch of unreliable sources is simply unacceptable. The bureaucrats usually don't take in charge of block/unblock, They're working on Administrator arrangements and site maintenance, If you feel that you're being treated unfairly by an administrator you should consider emailing WP:ARBCOM about your ban, The judge at ArbCom will decide your verdict whether you should be given second chance... Good Luck! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 12:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I talked to an editor who modified my previous post and said I will correct the materials that looked like advertising and promised to work more on the article to bring reliable sources and references. I was just in the process of doing that, reading /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). I made an earlier mistake of removing comments and promised not to do that again and haven't. Also I didn't submit this article to be published since then and won't be submitting until I find more reliable sources to backup the notability according to the notability for a product article. I'll be removing other not so relevant links as well. My original article was based on similar product /info/en/?search=NopCommerce but it doesn't look like similar references used there are enough. Let me know what did I do wrong, thanks. Woland2k ( talk) 23:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't think it is a good investment of everybody's time to unblock you as long as the only thing you're here is to write about something you have a conflict of interest about. People have already spent lots of time on you - even if you will eventually complete a policy-compliant article, people who would need to help you could write ten other articles in that time. Therefore, I feel that unblocking you would be a net negative to the project. Max Semenik ( talk) 22:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
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.
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm not here to write only this one article (and I will not submit this draft anymore), in the past I corrected some other articles as well and my intention was to participate in many different article discussions becoming much more active on wikipedia. So I will bring value to the wikipedia community and especially since I was educated on many aspects of creating artilcle I feel that this experience could make me a much better contributor. Please consider unblocking my account so I can demonstrate my good intentions. Woland2k (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblocked per consensus at ANI. Drmies ( talk) 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am willing to consider unblocking you, but at the request of the blocking administrator I have posted about your unblock request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sorry that your request is taking so long to be dealt with, but I hope there can be a definite yes or no soon. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- thanks, yeah I noticed that you posted on the admin page Woland2k ( talk) 07:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Draft:Virto Commerce
Draft:Virto Commerce, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Virto Commerce and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Draft:Virto Commerce during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
MONARCH
♔
06:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
MONARCH I didn't remove deletion request, I talked to the admin that deleted the article originally (as it is recommended by the rules) and he explained to me the reasons and agreed to undelete it and remove the badge for speedy deletion, you can see that in the history/talk page. He also explained what needs to be removed and showed me link to an article explaining notable references. I now educated myself on those topics and will not submit a draft until I can get the notable sources for an article. In the meantime my account was banned and I can't reply directly to the deletion article. This whole process seems to be very hostile and can be avoided with simple explanation of the process.
Woland2k (
talk)
06:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly ignored the notes given by other reviewers, You have tried to hide the
prior comments left by reviewers, as well deleting off the
Afc submissions, You're assuming
bad faith. I don't think you're honest, You tried to delete the history of
previously declined submissions. Is that what you're trying to convince a reviewer to push to this article to mainspace? By clearing the past decline history to show other reviewers that the article was newly submitted?
MONARCH
♔
07:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- MONARCH I did modify article and added more references to different sources as well as extending content with more encyclopedia type of content (after studing other published product articles). My understanding was that those references will make it more notable. I said that I will review and change them, remove not used. You claim that I tried to hide prior comments and was dishonest, that is not true. I was just cleaning up the article and those comments seem distracting. As soon as another user mentioned that I shouldn't be removing comments from the article body I stopped and apologized for the behaviour (i thought that history was preserved anyway in the article history so there was no need for it to be displayed right in the article, guess that is not true). I will not submit article again until the links are verified through the talk page instead. Woland2k ( talk) 07:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly ignored the notes given by other reviewers, You have tried to hide the
prior comments left by reviewers, as well deleting off the
Afc submissions, You're assuming
bad faith. I don't think you're honest, You tried to delete the history of
previously declined submissions. Is that what you're trying to convince a reviewer to push to this article to mainspace? By clearing the past decline history to show other reviewers that the article was newly submitted?
MONARCH
♔
07:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not favour any one national variety of English. Sometimes there is a good reason why an article should preferentially use one form rather than another: for example, in the article Abraham Lincoln it is natural to use US English, while in Winston Churchill it is natural to use British English. However, in the absence of specific reason to change things, the original form should be retained, and it is considered unhelpful to change from one variety to another without good reason, as you apparently did at Online shopping. If you do have a good reason for such a change, you should briefly explain that reason in an edit summary to prevent reverting of your change by an editor who is not aware of your reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 09:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, understood I thought it look very odd to have behaviour instead of behavior as I haven't seen that spelling for quite a while. I will pay closer attention next time.
I was one of those who supported unblocking you to give you another chance, but your editing since the unblock has already led me to think that you may have had your second chance and blown it. As you know, you were blocked substantially because you appeared to be editing to promote "Virto Commerce". I was therefore astonished to see that your very first edit after being unblocked was to add a mention of "Virto Commerce" to an article. My first thought was that I should give you a friendly mention of the fact that doing so was dubious, and similar editing might lead to a restoration of the block. However, I then saw that your second edit since being unblocked was to remove mention of another product from an article, with the edit summary "removed product that has no article". Since your first edit had been the addition of a mention of a product which had no article, for that second edit to follow immediately seemed remarkable. The product you removed had been the subject of an article which had been deleted, while the product you added had never got beyond the spam draft which you created. It could well be thought that you are taking advantage of the unblock to return to promoting your product, and also that you are applying different standards to that product than you apply to other products. Can you tell me any reason why I should not restore the block?
@ JzG, Philg88, Drmies, and Karl Dickman: Since you were all involved in one way or another in the discussions that led to the unblock, you may have an opinion about this. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The good faith extended to Woland2k reflects well on those involved. Woland2k's subsequent edits are either spam or
WP:POINT. With due respect and appreciation for the exemplary conduct of the above, @
JamesBWatson,
Philg88,
Drmies, and
Karl Dickman:, I have re-blocked based on subsequent edits as this person is clearly only here for one thing. As before, I am happy to have this reviewed and overturned if people think the problem has been adequately understood and addressed.
Guy (
Help!)
17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have no quarrel with it, Guy. I'm interested to know, for instance, how the editor who makes this edit, where they remove something that has no article, also makes this edit, where they add something that also has no article. No, I'm hypothetically interested: the only explanation is self-interest. Drmies ( talk) 17:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I added the product to the azure websites page (with no link to an article) as it is one of the web apps available on azure websites (
/info/en/?search=Microsoft_Azure_Web_Sites, this article actually needs to be renamed to Microsoft Azure Web Apps as name changed by MS) and the article contains a list of them, here is the reference:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/marketplace/web-applications/all/?page=3. NopCommerce is also on that list. Why is that wrong? Why would the comprehensive list of "create a site based on one of several available pre-configured images from the website gallery:" contain all the pre-configured images but specifically ommit Virto Commerce? If it is about notability, it makes no sense at all as "HTML5 Empty Site" and "PHP Empty Site" are listed and these are just placeholders, so it is comprehensive list of all pre-configured apps not just notable as provided by azure marketplace. There is no bias here, it is simply the fact it is one of the pre-configured web apps available and if article exists that lists all the apps it is supposed to be listed as well. Am I wrong here? Please explain. Regarding NopCommerce article, it is all together another topic, I couldn't find a reason why that article was deleted (yes it was created by the owner, but so is azure websites article) but I honestly think that it should not have been as one can find many references to that product. And references will be from very reliable sources for instance practicalecommerce.com (
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/970-Cart-of-the-Week-nopCommerce). Since it doesn't have an article and is not notable in the eyes of Wikipedia, it should't be listed with a link on "Online Shopping" article, especially not under open source product (it is a commercial open source, and not licensed under any recognized open source license).
I'm not spammer (
talk)
17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Woland2k, it is possible that you really honestly don't understand what is illogical about what you have written there, so I will point out just one aspect of it. You ask "Why would the comprehensive list of "create a site based on one of several available pre-configured images from the website gallery:" contain all the pre-configured images but specifically ommit Virto Commerce?" but nobody had said anything about whether the list should or should not contain Virto Commerce, about whether it should or should not contain all the other items it lists, or even about whether the list should exist at all: what had been mentioned was that the reason which you gave for removing other content applies equally to content which you added, the glaringly obvious difference being that one case concerned your own product, and the other didn't. If you disagree with someone, but, instead of explaining why you disagree with what they have said, you explain why you disagree with something else that they have not said, it is called a
straw man argument, and it is invalid. My own opinion is that the list shouldn't be there at all, with or without Virto Commerce, but I didn't mention that, because it was irrelevant: I was not dealing with any issue relating to whether that list should exist, and if so what it should contain, I was dealing with the issue of your double standards. You would be more likely to persuade other people to accept your point of view if you did the same: address the relevant points, not irrelevant ones. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ JamesBWatson: I'm not following my standards as they are irrelevant on WP, which was made perfectly clear to me before. I'm trying to follow rules established by WP. I'm very familiar and utilize/contributed to Virto Commerce, NopCommerce, EPiServer, AspDotNetStorefront, SiteCore so it was very easy for me to see the list was missing the product I'm familiar with so I added it (I didn't create a link as it is not notable and doesn't have an article). Is that wrong? Should I have posted in the comments section of that article before modifying an article? (I checked talk page for it and it hasn't been updated for a while and many wikipedia articles simply say be bold and modify). I reviewed articles on many cms/commerce products, for instance EPiServer page has only self published references and other issues which I combined and tried to format better. This is my area of expertise, I'm not comfortable editing what I know little about. And after thinking a bit more, I agree with your assessment that the azure website list should simply not exist as there will be more and more products added and it won't be possible to maintain it (it should/can be discussed on the article talk page). I understand your point about NopCommerce being removed (i added virto commerce on one page and then removed nopcommerce on the other) but here is what happened: while reading that article I was alerted by red empty link NopCommerce, which was a surprise that the article didn't exist (I searched for it, tried to see history of why it was removed or maybe it was moved somewhere but wasn't able to find anything), so I removed the bad link in accordance with a WP:REDDEAL "The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article.", again how should I have proceeded? My intention is not to attack products as a revenge nor it is to spam but to fix issues as it related to various shopping carts, ecommerce platforms, content management sections of WP and to provide reliable content that follows rules established by WP. I'm here to help ( talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Woland2k, it is possible that you really honestly don't understand what is illogical about what you have written there, so I will point out just one aspect of it. You ask "Why would the comprehensive list of "create a site based on one of several available pre-configured images from the website gallery:" contain all the pre-configured images but specifically ommit Virto Commerce?" but nobody had said anything about whether the list should or should not contain Virto Commerce, about whether it should or should not contain all the other items it lists, or even about whether the list should exist at all: what had been mentioned was that the reason which you gave for removing other content applies equally to content which you added, the glaringly obvious difference being that one case concerned your own product, and the other didn't. If you disagree with someone, but, instead of explaining why you disagree with what they have said, you explain why you disagree with something else that they have not said, it is called a
straw man argument, and it is invalid. My own opinion is that the list shouldn't be there at all, with or without Virto Commerce, but I didn't mention that, because it was irrelevant: I was not dealing with any issue relating to whether that list should exist, and if so what it should contain, I was dealing with the issue of your double standards. You would be more likely to persuade other people to accept your point of view if you did the same: address the relevant points, not irrelevant ones. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @
JzG,
Philg88,
Drmies, and
Karl Dickman: I am 100% in support of the re-block. It is clear that following the unblocking, the editor came back with two aims: (1) more promotion of his product, and (2) attacking other products in a spirit of revenge. This is an excellent example of one of the two advantages of unblocking in a case like this: if the editor has no intention of editing constructively then unblocking gives him or her a chance to demonstrate that, so that there is no longer any doubt about whether the block should remain. (The other advantage, of course, applies in those cases where the editor does start editing constructively.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @
JamesBWatson: Sigh. I can't say I'm surprised at the turn of events but I'm disappointed that
Woland2k didn't take the chance to start over. No question in my view that the reblock is 100% warranted.
Philg88 ♦
talk
20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ Philg88: Agreed: disappointing but, unfortunately, not surprising. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Aye. There
should be a commentary on it.
Guy (
Help!)
21:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- @ JzG: I added text "Virto Commerce" to the list where it belong (RS provided), I didn't add any link nor did I add any fluff or opinion. Hows that a WP:SPAM?. The second removal was in accordance with a WP:REDDEAL policy, article was removed so is the link. Explain what rule did I break to deserve instant permanent ban? I'm here to help ( talk) 05:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- @
JamesBWatson: Sigh. I can't say I'm surprised at the turn of events but I'm disappointed that
Woland2k didn't take the chance to start over. No question in my view that the reblock is 100% warranted.
Philg88 ♦
talk
20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I got blocked as an editor after this edit, where I removed something that has no article WP:REDDEAL (article was deleted recently), also made this edit, where I added something that also has no article but belongs to a list (reference: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/marketplace/web-applications/all/?page=3). I believe my block is a bit harsh and doesn't qualify as a WP:SPAM. Please consider unblocking me.
Decline reason:
Per admins' discussion here. Max Semenik ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
Woland2k ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My last block was almost a year ago and claimed that I was here for just advertising. I believe I served my time and now requesting to be unblocked. My previous changes were minor and I thought I followed wikipedia policies like WP:REDDEAL and wasn't spamming or retaliating. That said, from now on I will discuss sensitive changes first before considering making any edit. I still believe I can offer a lot of value to Wikipedia. Please consider unblocking me.
Accept reason:
I'll unblock you. I hope we won't end up discussing what "I won't write about VC" was supposed to mean. Huon ( talk) 00:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you explicitly agree to not write anything about Virto Commerce?
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I won't write about VC, as I mentioned I won't make any controversial changes without first discussion them on the talk page.
- Thanks for the unblock. I'm here to help ( talk) 00:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I won't write about VC, as I mentioned I won't make any controversial changes without first discussion them on the talk page.