User talk:NYCCommunity

Welcome!
((Help me))

July 2009
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Community NYC, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Community NYC
I have nominated Community NYC, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Community NYC. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yworo (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Community NYC
A tag has been placed on Community NYC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — Rankiri (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Article for speedy deletion

 * As you can see from my earlier message, under the criterion A7 for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. The article was also nominated for deletion by Yworo for the same reason. None of the references used by the article were valid (see WP:REF, WP:LINKFARM) and Google showed no apparent results that could establish notability of your organization.


 * Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. It is very important to understand that notability is not quite dependent on things like fame or popularity. All topics have to receive significant, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for standalone articles. You may visit WP:Notability (organizations and companies) to find more information on the subject. I also suggest visiting WP:PROMOTION to see the official policies that deal with self-promotion and advertising and WP:COI to see the behavioral guideline that governs conflict of interest editing. — Rankiri (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if your evaluation of the "article" were correct (encyclopedia articles don't end, "For more information visit..."), you've got a conflict of interest and shouldn't be creating such articles. You've also been spreading links to this same company all over Wikipedia, a prohibited act we call "spamming." -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what I read to do on Wikipedia to get my article to appear on google. It is not scamming if I put it with other related pages and I took off for more information vist... because I realized that maybe you people were having a problem with that. NYCCommunity (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In regard to your previous use of external links: you should know that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. — Rankiri (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And since when does a user get blocked right away without anyone warning them that they are "scamming". Because your definition of scamming is different than what scamming really is.NYCCommunity (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "scamming" I said "spamming", as defined here. What did you read where that led you to believe that it was permissible to advertise your company and its clients here? Wikipedia is for articles about notable subjects, written by disinterested third parties (people with no conflict of interest), and drawing on verifiable reliable sources. If the company or individual is not already notable enough to be showing up on Google, etc., this isn't the place to change that. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware of it, but from WP:BLOCK: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking...but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. NYCCommunity's latest promotional edit dates back to 21 July, 2009. The user hasn't made any such edits since his or her article got nominated for deletion, and a number of his or her postings clearly showed that the user had no clear understanding of Wikipedia's policies back at that time. I'm not an expert on WP's blocking policy but I would support giving NYCCommunity another chance. — Rankiri (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of any intention to make any actual useful contributions to the Wikipedia project. Additionally, the name alone qualifies this account for blocking as a spamusername. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your objections are valid, but is the indefinite block really necessary? The user, who only registered less than a month ago, stopped making inappropriate edits immediately after becoming aware of the official policies. The user also asked for help, both here and on my own talk page. Additionally, WP:COI states that This [policy] should not be used by administrators as a rationale for performing a block. Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. I'm not sure about the username though. WP:UNC says that it's quicker and easier to simply create a new account but it's not my decision to make and I simply don't know what the blocking policy says on this particular manner. — Rankiri (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)