User talk:108.219.250.209

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TOPYX Social LMS.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! B music ian 02:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

TOPYX Social LMS, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Rcsprinter (gossip) 14:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 5 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I helped edit one page in which all of the Wikipedia guidelines were followed. There was no spam, nor advertising issues (every statement supported by credible 3rd party citations) with the site until random people who did not even visit/read the page started making strange claims that the page should be deleted without any knowledge of the industry. I would like to be unblocked so I may report the activities of the people reviewing the page in question as I feel that a few uninformed people should not be able to make such claims without evidence. Wikipedia should have more people that edit pages with knowledge of the subject to provide a better experience for the reader, not the people who just know how to maneuver within Wikipedia. 108.219.250.209 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You had the chance to make this argument at the AfD; it failed. We keep or delete articles based on our standards, particuarly notability, and it was decided that the page you edited was not in keeping with that. There is nothing for you to report ... those editors were following our policy. So, therefore, given that this IP has demonstrated zero interest in genuinely encyclopedic subjects, I see no reason to unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 10 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please review this case again. All guidelines were followed in the editing one one page. A few uninformed editors made a claim of notability being an issue for that page with absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter. This was addressed during the Deletion Discussion, but I guess no one read that. How can people with no industry knowledge be allowed to make such claims arbitrarily? I wanted to edit this page personally since that is the way Wikipedia SHOULD work. The people with the most knowledge about a matter should be the editors, not paid writers. No one should be forced to pay others for wiki pages... that just isn't right. So, please explain how I was in violation of any wiki guidelines and why I am blocked. How can editing one page, within the guidelines, be considered spam?Also, I would like more information on why the TOPYX Social LMS page was removed. I personally worked with the wiki editors to make sure I was doing everything correctly. Even though the original content which was developed to follow the standards set by competitors and other companies was rejected, I worked very hard to make sure we followed the guidelines to my utmost ability, which is why the page was approved. I would still argue that much of the content that added to the Notability was rejected due to allegations of promotional language (once again by people with no industry knowledge). I do not care if I am blocked forever from Wikipedia - I did the right thing and the TOPYX Social LMS page deserves to exist. If this is how Wikipedia chooses to operate, I fear for the content that will be placed... by the highest bidder. Is there any additional information I may be able to provide to help the review of this issue?

Decline reason:

Whatever your personal opinion may be, the article clearly spam by wikipedia definition. I point out that apart from achieving a clear consensus for deletion at the AfD discussion, the article was three times rejected for creation. And, for the record, there are no paid writers working within wikipedia. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:52, 6 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not know how to respond to the last statement by Anthony Bradbury, so I just created a new unblock post My personal opinions should not be considered in this at all. I just want to know how this TOPYX Social LMS page violated any guidelines. I don't want other people's opinions considered either. I want to learn exactly how this page goes against any published guideline that Wikipedia has. As I clearly addressed in the AfD, the claims of the editor were baseless and only supported by his/her own opinion. The other two who commented didn't even bother to state a case. How can this be looked at as legitimate? No one can point to actual guidelines that were not followed. Is there some appeal process I can initiate? I am not a professional wiki editor. The page was created by someone else and they gave up because it was rejected. I picked it up with no knowledge of wikipedia editing at all. I studied up and many wiki editors provided me great guidance on how the page needs to be structured so it would be accepted. If there is a problem with the page, I should be able to fix it, no? Why do a few people with no knowledge of the subject matter at all get to make random statements that get viewed as legitimate in the review of a page? If someone can actually state what is wrong in real terms (Not just saying it is spam without backing that up with information), I would like the opportunity address the issues and make it a better page. Lastly, I wasn't implying that wikipedia has paid writers internally, just that I get solicited regularly by people trying to sell me services to have wikipedia pages created. So, I just assumed that there are many others who use such services. Please let me know what I can do to have the TOPYX Social LMS page reviewed so it can be edited and reinstated. 108.219.250.209 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising. You appear not to understand that rule well, since you are now for the third time asking to be unblocked so you can return to using Wikipedia for advertising. I'll be the third person to confirm - you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is, and no, you really are not allowed to advertise here. Please, don't request unblock again until you've read at least some of the more important links at WP:WELCOME and have a clearer idea of what Wikipedia is and how it works, because this unblock request indicates that you aren't familiar with even the most basic elements of the encyclopedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 6 December 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.

My personal advice would be, don't pay anyone to advertise on Wikipedia for you. When they are blocked for advertising, and the article deleted, somehow I doubt you'll get a refund. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 6 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Can you provide any information regarding how Advertising is defined in the Wiki guidelines and, if possible, what was done to violate that? I don't want a to contribute to anything that is considered Advertising, but no one is proving me information that can actually help. Since I have asked for information 3 times now for clarification on what was done that was considered advertising, either no one wants to or can answer the question. Was it because I only edited 1 page? If that is the case, I can at least understand that, but I am only qualified by my industry knowledge to consider myself eligible to edit a small number of pages. I wish more people felt that way. Was it the content created? If so, the edits had better citations than most pages that can be considered similar. The page was meticulously reviewed for encyclopedic material written in a neutral tone. I cut out what most company pages have (Clients, achievements, product specific features, etc...), which seemed strange since that is so prevalent, but I did it to try to exceed Wiki guidelines. If the page I edited had a Notability issue, that could be debated. If more info was required to satisfy that need, updates could have been made. And, since only one person made a claim on the Afd, which I addressed, I didn't think that there was any real, legitimate reason for the page to be deleted. So, again, what was done that is Advertising? There are thousands of company pages on Wiki. I want to follow the guidelines but it was never communicated what was done wrong. Any information that I can review would be appreciated. I really just want to know what was done wrong so in case I ever edit another page, I can avoid doing that again. 108.219.250.209 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please do not use the unblock process to ask a question. The requisite guidelines are WP:SPAM, WP:PROMO, WP:NCORP, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:COI and WP:NOT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:40, 7 December 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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.