User talk:CascaraBarbara

August 2019
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Artemis. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion.  MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you comment MrOllie, however the content I added to the Artemis | Legacy section is purely factual, descriptive and accurate information about a company which was named after the Goddess Artemis. As noted in my previous undo, this information is relevant to the Legacy section. Additionally, and in relation to the page you cited, the content is written in an objective, unbiased style in line with the NPOV expected on Wikipedia. It demonstrates no favouritism towards this company or it's products and therefore displays no grounds to be removed or disputed for "soapboxing, advertising or promotion".
 * If you have any suggestions for how to improve this edit please feel free to share. CascaraBarbara (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is obvious linkspam. If you continue edit warring to keep it in Wikipedia I suspect it is likely that the next admin that happens along will block your account over it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If your disagreement with this content is over the number of links used in the content, then please recommend an alternative. I have addressed all concerns you've expressed above and have explained in my previous comment how this content is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, therefore if you continue edit warring to keep it off Wikipedia, given the fact your basis for removing this content is invalid I would expect you to receive the block.CascaraBarbara (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My issue is both with the links and the content - it is promotional from top to bottom and doesn't include any of the independent references that would be needed if we were going to include some non-promotional version. Writing what amounts to a flat denial doesn't address any of my concerns. You're new to Wikipedia, I suggest you find some non-corporate content to work on to get acquainted with how this site operates. Surely you have some other interests that won't look like you're trying to sell somebody something. - MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for your post MrOllie and thank you for your additional warning. As I have clearly displayed above, all your claimed concerns have been addressed in my replies. You have no valid reason to remove the content I have posted, undo the posts I have made nor claim the content I added should not be included. As previously mentioned next to your first warning on edit warring, the content I have added breaks no guidelines or policies, it complies with NPOV and contains no promotional material only facts regarding a company named after Artemis. Therefore if this escalates to an admin, I expect your persistent actions which present as some personal vendetta against my account, may result in your account being blocked.


 * I have said multiple times, if you have a suggestion on improving this content please put it forward. However this content is relevant to the article, is written neutrally, contains no promotional material and therefore displays no reason why it should not be included.
 * N.B Following your previous post here, I added a second independant source on the company. Your persistent undo's in the light of myself improving the post in line with you expectations simply show you have no intention on resolving this matter but simply edit warring to keep it off of Wikipedia.CascaraBarbara (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Alexf(talk) 15:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please could you further clarify your reason for this block?
 * As mentioned in all the comments above, the content I added was in line with NPOV and is factually correct information about a company I advocate. I cannot personally understand which parts are viewed as advertisements or self promotion?
 * The only violations of the articles which you shared, that I can see is that I linked to their company website within the content which seems to be against Notability policies. Should any links have been kept for the citation area?
 * The only violations of the articles which you shared, that I can see is that I linked to their company website within the content which seems to be against Notability policies. Should any links have been kept for the citation area?


 * I'm very disappointed that this is the intermediary outcome of this situation given my clear explanation and believed compliance with all policies. No 3RR rules have been broken and no guidance or information on how to improve this content has been presented prior to receiving this disciplinary action.
 * I look forward to hearing from you.


 * Hi, uninvolved 3rd party here. The reason this is considered promotional is twofold: Firstly you'll notice that all of the included "Legacy" items link to Wikipedia articles about the subjects. There are undoubtedly dozens or more things that took their names from Artemis, but they're not all linked from there as we only mention "notable" ones (in this case "notable" simply means that many independent sources have written about them. This sort of ties in to the second issue, which is that you're directly linking text to the company web site. Normally such external links are added to the end of an article about the subject and not put inline with the text like that.
 * IF the company can pass all the requirements at WP:CORP then it may be appropriate to have an article about them, at which time it may be appropriate to add to the legacy section (subject to editor consensus), but unless all of those are met, it looks like the text is being added simply to link to the company for whatever reason. CrowCaw 16:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)