User talk:WoodchuckCider

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. 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, celebrity or other well-known individual, 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. See WP:FAQ/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 again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 24 November 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I edited the Wikipedia entry for Woodchuck Hard Cider on 11/4/11 as the entry that was up was filled with misinformation. All the edits were taken down as noted in your blocking of my account. We are not trying to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotions, but simply trying to lay out the varieties we have to offer. The information about our varieties can all be verified by our website, and countless other articles on the web, some of which were noted in the deletion discussion of the Woodchuck Hard Cider entry. Regardless of whether or not this account can be reinstated, the information that is now up is completely out of date and some of it is blatantly false. In fact the brand is now called Woodchuck Hard Cider not Woodchuck Draft Cider and is owned by Vermont Hard Cider Company, LLC not Green Mountain Beverage. We have also never produced a banana cider in the history of the company which is listed first on the products list on the current Wikipedia entry. I would like to request that our account be reinstated, and I want to make sure we don't do anything to break the rules in the future. I can re-edit the page and send it to you to make sure I'm not breaking any rules if that would be preferable. If not, I would ask that the page be taken down completely as we would rather have no Wikipedia entry than one with false information. I hope that you can advise me on this matter further. Thank you, Devin Mason Marketing Manager Consumer Relations Vermont Hard Cider Company, LLC

Decline reason:

See my long explanation just below A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 29 November 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.

WoodchuckCider (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Devin, I'm not going to unblock your account (because even if you understand our spam policies now, your username still isn't allowed by our username policies - I apologize that the original block template didn't make that clear), but I can help you improve the article from here for the moment. So first, let me quick you a quick-and-dirty summary of how Wikipedia guidelines operate:

Reliable sourcing is the key. Take a couple minutes to read that page, ideally, but basically it means that if you want the article to say, for example, who owns Woodchuck, you need to provide us with a link to "proof" for that statement - a news article saying "Woodchuck is produced by "Vermont Hard Cider Company", or even a page on the woodchuck website that says who you're owned by (I looked around there but couldn't find any information either way about who owns it). This works both ways - I've removed the "banana cider" claim, because that's not verifiable based on the source provided for the flavors (i.e. the Woodchuck website). Your own website can be used to source some things - who would know better than you what flavors you produce, for example - but not other things - clearly Woodchuck.com saying "Woodchuck is the best cider!" doesn't carry the same neutral authority as, say, the New York Times saying it.
That concept of neutrality leads into the next page you should read - our neutral point of view policy. This policy basically says that we write in an encyclopedic voice, not a promotional one, and that our reason for existence is to convey neutral information about topics, not to provide a business directory or advertising space. Your edits to Woodchuck fell afoul of this - using phrasing that said how "crisp and refreshing" woodchuck is, etc, sounds like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article on the topic of a cider brand. Similarly, linking to the Woodchuck website a bunch of times in an encyclopedia article just looks like you're trying to drive clicks to your product. The information you were trying to include was potentially useful, but the wording (and the trademark symbols!) with which you were including it was wrong.
Our conflict-of-intetrest policy is also important for you to read. It doesn't completely prohibit you from editing an article about a company in which you're involved, but it does strongly warn you that all your edits on this topic must adhere to our neutrality, sourcing, etc policies. Remember to be aware that sometimes it's hard to even notice you're not being neutral, when it's a topic you're deeply involved with or really care about.

Now, what can we do about this situation, with you blocked and the article cut down to almost nothing? We can improve the article with your correct information, but we need to do that according to the Wikipedia guidelines.

First, improving the article. We can do these things via your talkpage here, even if you remain blocked:
- You, as an employee of the company, are in a unique position to be able to find those reliable sources we need. Does Woodchuck have records of when it's been mentioned in the news? Could you provide us with links or citations to news articles that discuss Woodchuck in a neutral manner, to support facts like how popular Woodchuck is among drinkers, how it's ranked, what awards it's won? Do you have any record of news articles that talk about how Woodchuck may have had an effect on American culture, or anything like that? All these things will help establish the notability of the brand and convince people that it needs to be included in Wikipedia's topics.
- Errors. You note that our article currently has some errors in it about Woodchuck. Can you provide us with a list of what those errors are, and citations/sources to support the corrections you want made? I'd be happy to correct them once we can sort out the sourcing to use for them.
Second, your block:
- No matter how great the editor is, we can't allow usernames like yours that appear to represent a whole company. This is both because it appears to promote the company (it's like free advertising - any time anyone sees your edits listed under your name, they're seeing an ad for Woodchuck!) and because it makes it appear as though you're editing on behalf of the whole company, and our licensing policies require that all edits on Wikipedia be the work of one person. If we can't be sure that one person and one person only is operating the account and writing the contributions of that account, we can't let the account edit.
- The way to fix this is for you to request an unblock in order to change your username to something that makes it clear this this account is you, personally, editing Wikipedia, and not "a representative of Woodchuck. You request this type of unblock by using {{Unblock-un}} and filling in your reasoning for why you should be unblocked, and what username you would like to change to (a little more information on how to fill out the template is available at Template:Unblock-un).
- However, no administrator is going to grant an unblock request from you, even for a name change, until they can be sure that you've read and intend to follow the policies that you ran afoul of before - so you'll need to communicate here that you understand our sourcing and neutrality policies. Try to explain them back to me in your own words (though you don't need to use quite as many words as I have - I know I'm prone to writing walls of text!) so we know you understand them, and then in your unblock request, point to where you have shown that you understand our policies. I would suggest that if you're unblocked, you commit to using the talk page of the Woodchuck article to propose changes, rather than making them on your own, at least to begin with while you try to fine-tune your editing.

I can't promise that someone will unblock you even if you do these things (administrators have varying viewpoints of whether "paid" editors who work for companies should be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, and I tend to be on the more liberal side than some), but I will do my absolute best to make sure that the article gets improved with any neutral sources or factual corrections you point out here, even if you're not unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fluffernutter

Hello, At your request here is a list of articles that show our name has changed as well as provides articles linking to our different varieties and the fact that Woodchuck is the leader in the cider category (article from AdAge).

If there is additional information we can provide or other things we need to do on our end please let us know.

Business People History article: http://www.vermontguides.com/tg/gmBeverage0810TG.html

Leading Hard Cider Article. http://adage.com/article/news/cider-craft-brew-sales-climb/231198/

Name Change Article: http://beernews.org/2011/08/green-mountain-beverage-unveils-new-company-name/

BeerNews.org – Many Links to Woodchuck Stories and cider types. http://beernews.org/?s=woodchuck&submit=Search

Pumpkin: http://www.prlog.org/10915188-woodchuck-hard-cider-unveils-first-ever-pumpkin-cider.html

http://beernews.org/2010/09/woodchuck-hard-cider-unveils-first-ever-pumpkin-cider/

Barrel Select: http://www.pitchengine.com/woodchuckhardcider/new-woodchuck-hard-cider-private-reserve-label-released

http://www.brewbound.com/news/new-woodchuck-hard-cider-private-reserve-label-released

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodchuckCider (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I've used those sources to improve the article! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Thank you for making some of the updates however, it is still referenced as Woodchuck Draft Cider which is no longer the name of the product. Our website can show this. The product is no longer referred to as Woodchuck Draft Cider. We also have changed the name of the 802 Dark and Dry to just "802" if you'd like to you can put the Dark and Dry in parenthesis as it is the historical name.

We do feel that the Vermontguides.com post is helpful for those trying to understand more about the company.

Is there any way that these changes can be included? We appreciate your help with this. As new changes come along, you are suggesting that we post them to the talk page here or specifically for the entries talk page?

What happens with the deletion/rescue discussions? When are the decided upon?

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodchuckCider (talk • contribs)

Hi, I've made those changes that I missed the first time around. You have a couple of options for suggesting changes in the future.

First, you could continue proposing them here on your personal talk page. That's not ideal, because most people who edit the Woodchuck article won't happen to be looking at your talk page. I will keep this page on my watchlist and try to help you out, but we're all volunteers here and I can make no guarantees about my availability.
Second, you could request a username change and unblock as I suggested above, and provide future suggestions on the talk page of the Woodchuck article. If you will commit to a) following the policies I described above and only editing on the article's talk page rather than the article itself and b) immediately changing your username when unblocked, I will unblock you so that you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and request to be renamed to a non-company-associated username (for instance, your own name, or any sort of screen name that you like that doesn't give the impression that you're speaking for or advertising for Woodchuck). Please note that even if I unblock you, you are not permitted to continue contributing under this username; you must make your first act be having your username changed to one that meets username policy before you go on to edit anywhere else. I would also advise that if I unblock you under these conditions, you edit your user page to say something like "I work for Woodchuck Hard Cider" so that people know they are dealing with someone from the company (I know, it's counter-intuitive that you can't use your username to do that instead, but them's da rules...).

The deletion discussion should be closed within a day or two - they run for a week, and this is the seventh day, I believe. It looks likely that the article will be kept, now that we've improved it, but you can check back on that discussion tomorrow to be sure. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]