User talk:Ctomic

Welcome!

Hello, Ctomic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Day Cafe, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GrayFullbuster (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Day Cafe

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.

If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.

The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.

We really hope you'll stick around to help make Wikipedia better! Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello Ctomic. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Chris Tomic, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day Cafe

The deletion of the Day Cafe article does not have to do with whether or not the shop exists; I'm sure it does. The issue is that it is very promotional. Wikipedia articles aim to be encyclopedic, not promotional. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Im sorry about the confusion, but I am not an expert in posting articles on Wikipedia. It was my intention to use 2 different accounts, all I wanted is to seprate the articles. Can you please unblock so I can continue writing you?

Decline reason:

Excplanation appears below, at some length.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:47, 14 December 2011 (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.

.

Speedy deletion nomination of Day Cafe

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 Day Cafe, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GrayFullbuster (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you have said "I am using 2 usernames as one is my private account which I used to edit infos on my profile. The other once is the company login which I used for Day Cafe. Therefore I do not understand why you are blocking my accounts?" However, that is not consistent with the obervable history of your editing. Using the account Ctomic you twice created the article Day Cafe, and using the account Ftv2011 you also created the same article. Both accounts have also edited the article Chris Tomic. It is therefore not true that you have been using the two accounts for different purposes. Why you have been using several accounts I cannot know for certain. However, the account Ftv2011 was created a little while after the account Chris Tomic had received a conflict of interest warning, and Ftv2011's second edit removed a conflict of interest notice from the article Chris Tomic. It superficially looks as though the account was created in the hope that it would appear to be a different person, and thereby hide the conflict of interest. I am always willing to assume good faith whenever there seems reasonable doubt, but in your case there are so many things that you have done which prima facie appear to be deceptive that it is difficult to maintain such an assumption of good faith. However, even if you were to convince me that you had a legitimate reason for using two accounts (and just happened to forget what the reason was when you posted to my talk page) Ftv2011 would remain blocked, as its username violates Wikipedia's username policy, because it suggests that the account represents a company. (You may have forgotten, as it was several months ago, but that was why FTV Media Group was blocked.)

The reason that I have nominated Chris Tomic for deletion is not, as you suggest, because of your use of multpile accounts, nor because I think that the article you cite as a reference is "not authentic", but because I see no evidence that you satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. The use of multiple accounts is irrelevant. The fact that I see no evidence that the magazine was as significant as you suggest is only marginally relevant, since even if what you say is true, the coverage there does not constitute the substantial coverage that is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Wikipedia is not a medium for self promotion. Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you were notable by Wikipedia's standards then it is unlikely you would have needed to do so, as someone else would probably have done it. Also, if you were notable by Wikipedia's standards I would probably have found no difficulty in finding reliable independent sources giving substantial enough coverage to indicate that fact.

If you are blocked from editing, then that means that you are not permitted to edit, not that you may evade the block by editing without logging in. You may have not realised that, overlooking or not fully grasping the point of "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions" in the block notice. Nevertheless, since you have evaded the block, it will now be reset to its original length. The IP address you used will also be blocked. One exception is normally made to a block, namely that you can still edit your talk page. This exception is made to allow you to request an unblock if you have good reasons for doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

How can I argue against the close down of the entry if you block my account for 3 days? within these 3 days the article will already be deleted. Can you please open up the account so I can have a discussion with you about the accusation before the article is taken out? Ctomic (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Let's see: An article for deletion discussion takes 7 days. You're rightly blocked for 3 days oh so many reasons. 7 minus 3 = 4 days that you'll have to explain clearly WHY you're spamming an encyclopedia of knowledge about actually notable subjects, and why you seem to think WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO don't apply to you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:44, 14 December 2011 (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.