User talk:Zapbuild

Speedy deletion nomination of Zapbuild

Hello Zapbuild,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Zapbuild for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been flagged for speedy deletion because:

in its current form it serves only to promote an entity, person or product, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is an article's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the tag to alert others to do so. See WP:CSD G11.

as an article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See WP:CSD A7.

In addition to which, you are using Wikipedia to promote a person, company, or organisation that you are closely related to. See WP:COI, and your account will shortley be blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome. The username you've picked and your contributions seem to represent a group, organization or website, so I blocked this username per our username policy, but don't let that discourage you: please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual, and please edit as yourself, not as a representative of this group, organization or website. If I can help you with anything, please ask on my talk page. Thanks for your understanding. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 5 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Now My proposed article has good sources. My submission is neutral, establishes notability, and is not copy-pasted from anywhere else

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violation of the Username policy. Please re-read what Dank has written above.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2012 (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.