User talk:Nukoko

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you.

Additionally, it appears your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest, though you may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to block your account, but it is an important principle that Wikipedia accounts are for individual persons only, and account names which are those of organizations are not allowed. You are welcome to apply for an unblock to change username, or simply to set up a new individual account, but the page your wrote would still not be acceptable.

You said at WP:REFUND that "We created the page to spread the word about our charity." Unfortunately, that is not what Wikipedia is for. In order to achieve its aim of being an encyclopedia, it is necessary to avoid a long list of things that Wikipedia is not, in particular Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. We do not allow people to use Wikipedia to tell the world about themselves or their causes. This is explained in more detail at:

If from a new individual account you still wish to write about your charity, you should first be sure that you can meet the notability requirement, which is not a matter of opinion but must be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people unconnected with the subject thought it important enough to write significant comment about? If you cannot meet that requirement, you will be wasting your time trying to make an article. To say that an organization is not notable in Wikipedia's sense is not at all to its discredit; it simply means that it is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.

If you want to proceed, then:

read the WP:Five pillars and the WP:Welcome page for a general introduction
read WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest
read WP:Your first article
make a draft in your user space - see Help:Userspace draft for how. (But note that userspace is not intended to permanently hold material unsuitable for the encyclopedia). It should be about actual achievements, backed up by reliable sources (see WP:Verifiability), rather than aims, beliefs and mission-statements, and should be written in a neutral tone, not in the first person, as an article about the organization, not a statement from it.
apply at WP:Articles for creation, declaring your interest. Either the article will be accepted, or you will be told why not.

I am sorry to be so unwelcoming, but Wikipedia can only remain a useful encyclopedia by resisting the temptation to depart from its core task. There are many websites - see WP:Alternative outlets - which would be happy to let you post the sort of feature about your charity that you have in mind, but Wikipedia is not one of them.

If you have any questions, you can reply below here - I will watch this page.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nukoko

Hi John, Thank you for explaining why the page and the account was blocked. If we were to start an individual account and create a page for Nukoko that was purely for informational purposes without statements from the organization, would that be accepted? Nukoko (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to demonstrate WP:Notability by showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - see the more detailed explanation of this above. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]