User talk:404DelendaEst

Your submission at Articles for creation: Recovery Centers of America (July 18)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Recovery_Centers_of_America Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Thisi s essentially advertising

 DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

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 at the bottom of your talk 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 that 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. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

rename to DelendaEst not successful
I'm sorry, but the chosen username, DelendaEst, is too similar to an existing username or it used to be username of someone else that got renamed: Delendaest. Please make another selection. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

globally renamed RecoveryCOA to 404DelendaEst
globally renamed RecoveryCOA to 404DelendaEst   Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Yunshui/decline promo renamed

For some context, the negative articles you mentioned are both part of the only negative news batch about RCA and are based on just one of RCA's eight facilities, the one in Danvers, MA. It was opened soon after the company was founded in a state outside the companies headquarters and unfortunately there were mistakes made. It's hard to make all facilities perfect from the get go, there's always some learning curve with any new endeavor. That said, we fixed all the issues and have not had any negative press since. To me it honestly seems strange that I am expected to include negative press about my employer, which I personally find biased and skewed, rather than allowing another Wikipedia editor contribute and improve on my submission that just describes the company without any judgement. You guys are holding paid posters to much higher standards than your run of the mill wikipedia editors and essentially promoting non disclosures of COI and undisclosed paid editing. Much of literature and educational text, including actual encyclopedias, are motivated by monetary reasons. Money drives some of the best contributions to the scope information available to humanity and you guys are fools not to use this fact to your advantage on wikipedia. Help paid posters make good articles instead of stonewalling them. Make a rule that requires a specific number of contributions in the field that their company is in before they can post about it if you have to, but please establish clear, easy to follow guidelines for how paid posters can contribute to their company's wikipedia pages. That said if there's no way for me to contribute information about Recovery Centers of America until I have "a few thousand edits" under my belt, then so be it I agree to your demands, despite the fact that "a few thousand edits" seems excessive and reads like "take a hike paid poster."
 * Yes, we do hold paid editors to higher standards, because the rest of us are volunteer editors, doing this only because we want to help add to this collection of human knowledge. Bringing money into it also brings in neutral point of view questions.  You yourself has stated that you would prefer not to add information you deem 'negative' about your employer to its article.  Any information, good or bad, can appear in an article as long as it appears in an independent reliable source.  You can't keep negative information out.  Merely telling about your employer is considered promotional here.  We are only interested in what independent sources state about article subjects.  If you just want to tell people about your employer from its point of view, or leaving out information not favorable to your employer, you shouldn't do it here, but on social media, your own website, or other forum where doing so is allowed and you can say what you want. Since you indicate, if begrudingly, acceptance to the request(not "demand") that you not edit about your employer until you have more edits under your belt, what subjects do you want to edit about instead? They will need to be unrelated to your conflict of interest(please read WP:COI if you haven't already). 331dot (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that other wikipedia editors can add 'negative' information about my employer, I have no problem with that as long as it is factual. I am just not clear why I am personally expected to do it. I was honestly trying to follow wikipedia rules to post an article about my employer that is in accordance with wikipedia standards, but it seems like that is not possible unless you have a long editing history. I want to contribute to articles related to addiction, psychoactive substances, addiction treatment, etc. 404DelendaEst (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's going to be hard, since that is your field(per WP:SIMPLECOI: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors") but you are free to make another unblock request that another heretofore uninvolved administrator will review. If you can convince them to unblock you, I have no objection to it. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Recovery Centers of America


A tag has been placed on Draft:Recovery Centers of America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"editing by coi sock"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Recovery Centers of America


The page Draft:Recovery Centers of America has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)