User talk:Shadoww74

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, 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.

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 this 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 by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that even if you are unblocked and get a new username:
 * you disclose your employer on your user page
 * you should not edit the article relating to RAD Software or any related company or person
 * RAD Software does not own our article about RAD Software, the community does.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you promise not to make direct edits in connection to RAD Software if unblocked? Talk page discussion is allowed, of course.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon Vanjagenije, i appreciate that there have been violations to policy and i will be happy to rectify this and be open to instruction of how to carefully resource and apply respected reference material (through the talk page obviously). I do not wish to fall foul of the administrators over compliance and certainly do not wish the companyRAD Software to be black marked over my own uneducated attempts to sort the issue in the first place. Regards Craig White
 * Once again: Can you promise not to make direct edits in connection to RAD Software if unblocked? Yes or no?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

YES


 * Hi. Per your request at WP:CHUS, I have renamed your account to "Shadoww74". I'd also like to remind you to sign your posts on a talk page; you can do this by adding four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments.


 * For example, like this:

Hello! My name is John! ~


 * The four tildes will automatically be converted into a link to your userpage, as well as the date and time you posted that comment. This information is needed to let editors know who posted the comment, and when. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

At any point did i say that i would make a any direct edits relating to RAD...Shadoww74 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Surely with the promise i made (2hrs before your comment), and, also the fact that i must send an in order for someone else to edit. The information in the article is flawed, out of date and has the potential for damages to be pursued.Shadoww74 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC) You were quick to point to my promise and ignored my questionShadoww74 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thankyou K6ka, i appreciate all help so that i can work within the guidelines set by the governing administrators Shadoww74 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a few things that were mentioned earlier in the previous conversations today that i was unfamiliar with "tlx arguement"? And i understand that RAD do not own the page, we had some criteria on it that was potentially damaging and most of the references had been sabotaged by someone previously so the links did not work. I had been looking at damage limitation, a quick fix if you will, however , i saw the statement on the page advising that things had to change and i thought to i had better adhere but in doing so i made it worse. Anyway i would like to start afresh with new reference material and also more in depth background with timeline and milestones if that sort of thing is acceptable Shadoww74Shadoww74 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that you promised not to write about RAD. You can propose edit on the talk page and use the template to request the edit to made.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have nominated the article for deletion, at Articles for deletion/RAD Software, as I do not believe that there is sufficient notability demonstrated (as per WP:NCORP) to justify an article. You are welcome to offer your opinion at the deletion discussion, but please mention your connection if you do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any point in my proceeding with this when all i am receiving are further obstacles and now you want to delete the article. i was trying to fix the problem and now that i have been unblocked you put it up for deletion anyway.Shadoww74 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You say that I ignored your question. I'm not sure which question. Also, the article is nominated for deletion on the grounds that it lacks WP:notability. You say that you are trying to fix the problem, but the only way to fix the notability problem is to provide reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject (See: WP:42). If you have those, feel free to comment at Articles for deletion/RAD Software.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the tlx arguement? Ian Thomson mentioned it in the original message above (Do not include the "tlx" argument.)Shadoww74 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah I get it. In Wikipedia, when you want to invoke a template, you put the name of the template between two sets of curly brackets. For example, if you type and save the page, the result will look like this:  because that invokes the Template:Smiley. But, if you want just to show someone how to use a template, and not to actually invoke that template, you can use the Template:tlx, and type for example:  . The result looks like this: . It just shows how to use template, with a link to that template.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (I'd started so I'll finish) Nobody is trying to put obstacles in your way, we are only trying to apply Wikipedia's inclusion rules. I hadn't seen that article until I came upon your requests here, and I have now taken the time to examine it. It reads like a PR puff piece, and that's something that could be rectified by rewriting it. However, it also looks to me as if the company really isn't sufficiently notable for an article, and that's not something that can be fixed by rewriting - it appears to be just a software retailer which no reliable sources have written about in any depth. What you should do now is hold off and see if there's a consensus to delete or keep (and, of course, feel free to add your own opinion to the discussion - if you can find the needed reliable sources, it could be kept). Then, if the article is kept, you can request changes to it as already discussed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)