User talk:Discorser

Welcome!

Hello, Discorser, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Discorser, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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! TF ^{{ Contribs }} 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Discorser

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 Discorser requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Your username is your employer's company name, and you are trying to write about them

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Discorser, and I noticed that your username, "Discorser", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Trammel Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", and "WidgetFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We assume the page is deleted

Can you confirm if the page "Discorser" has already been deleted? Discorser (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the log shows: "12:55, 5 December 2015 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Discorser (A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discorser, to be accepted, your article needs to be demonstrate the notability of the company by coverage of it by reliable sources...newspapers, magazines, books, mainstream websites are some acceptable sources. Self-published sources, such as information from a company's website, are not considered appropriate because they are promotional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy. Also, your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is against Wikipedia's policy: an account is for an individual, not a group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth 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 kind of 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Contributed Page

We can confirm that prior to an Email from a reader that this person is in no way connected to our account. We pride ourselves on having a "User Contributed" consumer base. Although it seems suspicious we also indeed said about this Wikipedia page on our website which confirms that your suspicions were indeed incorrect. We ourselves can only request that the name "Discorser" is unblocked as that is linked directly to the Optim Corporation. Unfortunately we cannot provide anymore information although we will help our reader by kindly requesting that you unblock him/her. Sorry for any confusion caused and once again we clarify that no "Sock Puppetry" was involved, this is due to our strict regulations and if an employee was found to have done this then we would have to follow our guidelines on this. I can also confirm that we have appointed only one person, myself, to run and monitor this Wikipedia page although we recently discovered we cannot write a page under the name of "Discorser" ourselves but we do request that the page name is unblocked. Sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused.

Lilly Ferrin,

Editorial Manager. Discorser (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

We believe we've been blocked for an unknown reason and our company name "Discorser" is now unable to use as a page title name. Please unblock this and we will not further edit that page not create it again. We kindly request you do this. Please. Thank you. Discorser (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please have only one unblock request open at any one time.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:24, 6 December 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.

Discorser (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further complications

User:Jxmie0 sorry for all the Inconvenience caused by all this. We hate to have our public members accused wrongly and we will do all we can to revert this. We have reviewed all the information about Pages and understand why the page was deleted although not as to why our accounts have been blocked. Further recommendations are included in another email. Discorser (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock this account and the page title name "Discorser" and we will proceed to delete this account as long as everything is undone. We did not intend to advertise on this page we just supplied some information about ourselves, but until our name is cleared of blocks then we cannot proceed to delete the account. We also did not read the terms correctly and missed that you weren't allowed to use your own username as a page name. Although we can confirm that we are not a company but this page is run by an individual who works for it but due to guidelines the name needs to be cleared until we can delete. Discorser (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Accounts cannot be deleted; pages can. In view of your phrasing it is not clear to me who "we" are in your request. Given that you will not be able to write about your company, is there anything else you want to write about here? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:28, 6 December 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.

Discorser (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because your username suggeststhat you are editing on behalf of an organisation, which is forbidden; and because you appear to be here solely in order to promote that organisation, which is forbidden. Jxmie0, even accepting that they are a separate person, also appears to be here solely to promote that organisation, which is forbidden, and also appears to be here specifically because you procured them to join, in an attempt to get round the deletion of the unacceptable article that you wrote: that is precisely what puppetry is, whether of the sock or the meat variety. Either or both of you would be welcome as editors if you were here for the purpose of helping us improve the encyclopaedia, as opposed to adding promotional material to it: in Jxmie0's case, they might be able to get unblocked if they persuaded an admin that they understood why they were blocked and were going to work elsewhere in Wikipedia. In your case, you would need to create a new user account.

It doesn't make any difference whether you are a company or not, and whether you are commercial or not. If Wikipedia has an article about yor organisation, it should be based almost 100% on what people unconnected with your organisation have published about it. What you have said about it - anywhere - or what you want said about it, are almost completely irrelevant. If there is substantial material published in reliable places (whicn excludes social media, forums, blogs) by people unconnected with the organisation (which excludes your own websites, and interviews and press releases you have given out) then there can be an article, based almost exclusively on that published material. If there happens to be material critical of the organisation published, then that should certainly be summarised as well. You are discouraged from working on such an article, but not forbidden. (If you decided to try, I would strongly recommend using the article wizard). If such material does not exist, then no article about it, however written, would be acceptable.

But I recommend that you give up trying to write about that organisation on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE

WE HAVE TRIED SO HARD AND THIS IS REALLY UPSETTING. IF WE WERE UNBLOCKED I WOULD EDIT INFORMATION NOT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY BUT BY MYSELF. I HAVE NOW LITERALLY TAKEN TO TRAWLING THE INTERNET IN SEARCH OF AN ANSWER. I AM CRYING THAT I'M SO ANNOYED/UPSET. PLEASE UNBLOCK US AND WE WILL CHANGE THE NAME. YOU ARE RUINING OUR CHANCES OF OWNING A DISCOVERY PAGE BECAUSE THIS WILL BE LOGGED. I AM BEGGING YOU, PLEASE UNBLOCK US.

Did you read the block notices? Propose a username change with {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page and you can edit as an individual. I don't know what a "Discovery page" is but an article on your company can be created by someone who is not connected with your company as long as it is reliably sourced which demonstrates that it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out also that Wikipedia does not allow group or company accounts, so you need to drop this "us" stuff and convince someone that you will edit alone from your account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it strange the way you and User:Jxmie0 always seem to be online and appealing your blocks at the same time? I think there's enough for a sock puppet report, which I will file shortly - you will be informed when it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know what you mean by a "discovery page", Discorser, but if you mean any kind of page at all on Wikipedia, then your chances of "owning" one are zero, and always have been. Nobody OWNs any page on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Discorser, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

Just for anyone interested in the subject matter here, the last version of the Discorser article opened with "Discorser is a Media and News publisher which is run by the Optim Corporation", and said it has "thus far revolutionised the way we interact with News" (the latter despite the claim that it was only "established on the 16th of November, 2015").

I've done a good bit of searching now, and I can't find anything to corroborate that at all - I can find no media and news publishing, and nothing to connect the name with Optim Corp. In fact, all I can find is a couple of social media accounts under the name "Discorser" but with no content (and the Google Facebook hit gets a non-existent or deleted page). Discorser does not appear to have its own web site, and the URLs discorser.com and discorser.co.uk are unregistered. In short, I can find no evidence for the existence of this entity at all, and the more I look the more I don't find anything. This whole thing looks more and more like a hoax, or perhaps an SEO attempt at bigging up something that's not really started yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

For anyone interested, I have just blocked another sock, User:Bobstheword, who has recreated a Discorser article again - again making totally unsupported grandiose claims. I have salted the article title so it can not be created again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Please unblock Discorser (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I have since decided on a plan to use this Wikipedia page for individual use only. I will edit documents on my own behalf and already I have spotted incorrect information about existing fashion brands and magazines which I will attended to. I will also Change the user name to My own. The block was put in place as the Username is directly attached to the Companies I was writing about, in terms of the sock puppetry allegations I have nothing to do with them, although for the block placed on this personal account I understand that the company is not (yet) notable and we will wait until we have an established website and Discovery Page on Snapchat, although may we get that page name un-salted when the time comes so as that someone else may write about us if they want. Regards. Lilly Ferrin.

Decline reason:

There's no compelling reason to unblock a single purpose advertising account that's already wasted too much of our time with deception and changing stories. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 7 December 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.

Discorser (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin, please see below - ~~and contact me if you need to see the email I just received from this user.~~ Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC) (Email quoted below at the request of the sender Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Username change

The reason I would like to change this name is because the current one is related to a company and I would like to create this account into a personal account. Discorser (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

The email you just sent me makes it clear that you have not paid any attention whatsoever to the reasons the article Discorser was deleted or why the user accounts creating it have been blocked - you are absolutely not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your non-notable startup, the blocked accounts will not be unblocked, and the article title will not be unsalted for you to create it again. As a consequence of your ongoing disruption, I have revoked your ability to use the Wikipedia email facility. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I'm not really sure what I wrote in the email but it may have been angry, I'm very ill at the moment and have mind blanks therefore I'm not a person who remembers things... But can I change my username at least? Discorser (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's really late

It's 00.05 and it's quite late, I did hope to get something done before I have work tomorrow but can we sort this? Otherwise I'll just be paranoid for the rest of the day that this needs to be sorted. Discorser (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was in the email?

I can't quite remember what was in the email so could you copy and paste it onto a comment because I fear it was something mean? Sorry if it was. Discorser (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As we presume our account has now be in certain terms "Destroyed" we will now have to email you. Since yesterday we can confirm the other users have no relation to us therefore we kindly request you un-salt the Page name of Discorser. We would also kindly request that you unblock ALL accounts as you have now proved you are abusing your abilities. We happened to notice that the new Wikipedia page, created by someone who is not even a registered writer with us has been deleted even with information such as the website being provided. Please can you unblock the Page Title and accounts and if you do indeed find that one of these accounts has been used for the wrong reasons then you have permission to block again."

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

Well that email was a little blunt also I will come out, this was a failed project, but we are still hopeful, as indeed we are not fully established but rather we are students hoping this will indeed help us on our way to further education, so that's why I'm worried, I am also very paranoid that they will find out about this and user jxmie0 is my friend and we still want to do this project so please can you unblock us as I'm sure you understand the struggles of writing CV's Discorser (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so the person who initially denied all knowledge of you is now your friend, eh? We've had a catalogue of evasiveness, deceit, self-promotion, and downright lies here, from multiple accounts, and I will not unblock you or any of the other accounts and I will not unsalt the article title. However, as the blocking admin I cannot review your unblock request, so I must leave that to someone else - and if they accept your appeal they are welcome to unblock you without my approval. Now, you have already wasted a significant portion of my weekend and of my goodwill, so please forgive me if I now wipe my hands of you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sick with torment

We actually feel ill now so I beg, beg of you please unblock our accounts and let us change our names otherwise this will be recorded on us, can they do that? Oh my goodness I am going fine sick now, I'm so ill, I need to just, sorry Discorser (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done?

Oh my dear God, I have messed up my whole life I am that stupid! Can you unblock us still, no I've ruined our chances me and jxmie0 were so hopefull, I will forget this tomorrow I told you that I have mind blanks? Can you hope me? Oh no my life has been destroyed by my idiotic behaviour! Discorser (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the un-salt?

Can you please at least un-salt the page for further peace of mind as I'm sweating so much of worry and I can't get to sleep, please I beg of you please be nice? Discorser (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Discorser ever rise to sufficient notability to satisfy the requirements of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, you can ask for it to be unsalted then - but the reviewing admin will want to see sufficient reliable third-party sources supporting that notability. Until then, an article is not justified, and so Wikipedia has nothing to gain by unsalting the title, and if you are agreeing not to recreate the article until the venture achieves notability, then you have no need for it to be unsalted either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you allow my friend to use his user talk page?

Can you please please allow my friend to use his user talk page I beg of you please, he hasn't done that much wrong and he is definitely not a troll, in fact we hate trolling but can you just allow him to use his talk page so we can both explain? Discorser (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]