User talk:DevOpsDotCom

Your submission at Articles for creation: DevOpsInstitute.com (June 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eclipsed was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DevOpsInstitute.com 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.

-- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! DevOpsDotCom, 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! -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am a new user and have never posted on wikipedia before. Once you blocked me and declined my submission I read the reasons why and reviewed the policy for posting. I understand I cannot link to outside pages, and I must make my post more neutral rather then a promotional piece. I apologize for my mistake and it will not happen again

Decline reason:

No new username selected, clear intent to continue COI editing. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:03, 29 June 2015 (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 request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

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

Request reason:

Reason I am a new user and have never posted on wikipedia before. Once you blocked me and declined my submission I read the reasons why and reviewed the policy for posting. I understand I cannot link to outside pages, and I must make my post more neutral rather then a promotional piece. I apologize for my mistake and it will not happen again. I have requested a new username because Yunshui declined my previous unblock request due to "No new username selected". I do not understand what Yunshui meant by "clear intent to continue COI editing". I plan on editing my articles to comply with the guidelines of wikipedia. I will include references, as well as reword and formate the articles to represent that of a neutral, purely information wiki entry.

Decline reason:

Per below, I don't see any interest in editing not related to your employer. Please let us know if it's not the case. Max Semenik (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI=conflict of interest. Problem is, we have countless instances of people posting what they quite honestly believe is neutral, unbiased information on their company/band/project/pet etc., but which to any outsider looks like marketing-speak of the worst sort. Thus, the block message above makes it very clear that you will probably not be allowed to edit about the DevOpsInstitute or related topics. Given that, you need to tell us what you plan to edit instead, since you aren't going to be permitted to write about your company any more. If you don't have any purpose here beyond writing about your company, then there is no need to unblock you. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: so in what way would a page be allowed to be posted about DOI if the company cannot create the page themselves?

And why am I not allowed to post a strictly informational piece, non promotional, about DevOps Institute? Such as other companies on here that have a piece written that just has information about said company.

Comment as someone who noticed this in passing: I've just read Draft:DevOpsInstitute.com, and oh dear, it's blatant marketing bullshit from start to finish and you should be ashamed you tried to pass it off as an encyclopedia article. I'm often amazed (not just here on Wikipedia, but in general) that people who work in marketing are often utterly blind to what is plainly obvious to the rest of us. And the answer to "...in what way would a page be allowed to be posted about DOI if the company cannot create the page themselves", the answer really should be obvious - someone else should write it! So I'll make you an offer. If you can provide sufficient reliable sources (see WP:RS) to show that DevOpsInstitute.com satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards for companies (see WP:NCORP), I'll have a go at writing an article about it. Mr Potto (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Potto: Thank you very much for your informative response, I'm honestly new to posting and was not trying to "pass this off" as a marketing piece. My mistake for not fully reading the directives and protocols of posts prior to my post. I appreciate your offer and would be thrilled for you to do so. I hope these links satisfy the notability standards. In terms of sources, this website is a company, though a school for DevOps, I'm not sure how I would list sources. Are they necessary for a piece like this? If so, any directives, or is what I provided sufficient?

Thanks again. Here are links.

http://devops.com/2015/02/18/the-devops-institute-heralds-the-dawn-of-enterprise-class-devops-training-and-certification/ http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/02/prweb12523709.htm http://www.itsmacademy.com/doi-devops-institute/ http://www.fiercedevops.com/story/devops-institute-bring-training-enterprises/2015-02-19 http://cloudcomputing.sys-con.com/node/3309338

I hope these satisfy the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevOpsDotCom (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 June 2015‎

I don't believe they do. Those are thin repostings of the press release. The Dissident Aggressor 16:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They look to me just like press releases (and as The Dissident Aggressor says, repostings of such), and I don't think there would be any real chance that an article sourced to just those would survive a deletion review. What we'd need is for the company to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG), like mainstream press sources, newspapers, etc. Some industry-specific sources would probably be acceptable, but only if carrying independent coverage rather than reporting on the company's own press releases. Mr Potto (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:DevOpsInstitute.com

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:DevOpsInstitute.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://devopsinstitute.com/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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. The Dissident Aggressor 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{OTRS pending}}~~

I have struck the {{OTRS pending}} template. This template goes on the article talk page, not on your user page. I will notify the deleting admin @RHaworth: that OTRS ticket 2015062910017443 has been received and appears to be in order. --B (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the text is released with an appropriate license for reuse, what was in Draft:DevOpsInstitute.com when I saw it was completely unsuitable for a Wikipedia article - it would have been a G11 speedy delete as an article, even if G12 was not applicable. Mr Potto (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The OTRS ticket was pointless - the text was totally unsuitable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]