User talk:VERA Verification

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. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jimfbleak,

we, being the International VERA Secretariat, haven't got the intention to spam or promote our cooperation in an unwanted way. We have just created our user account "VERA Verification" under the German Wikipedia site and authorized, identified and confirmed ourselves there by email with the administrators. Afterwards our user account was accepted and we posted our article on the VERA Verification project there. Please find the relevant link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_of_Environmental_Technologies_for_Agricultural_Production.

What we did now was just a "simple" translation of the German article for the English Wikipedia website. It is in no way our intention to promote, advertise or spam the system. Our cooperation hasn't the aim to earn any money. During our research in preparation of the article, we found our project mentioned on this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Technology_Verification_Program, which we also refer to in our articles.

This was the reason why we created a detailed article on the VERA cooperation which stands for Verification of environmental technologies for agricultural production.

Furthermore, if the English Wikipedia needs a written confirmation/authorization from our side per email, please let us know. We would be happy to provide you with eventually necessary additional information.

We hope this is of help and that you would be able to unblock our account and re-store the posted article. Kindest regards --VERA Verification (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
ping for your info Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC) VERA Verification, I'm afraid that the rules here are much stricter than on de-wiki
 * You cannot use as your user name the name of an organisation name, or any other name that implies shared editing; follow the link in the block box. There is no possibility of the account being allowed, but you could post a request to be unblocked temporarily to create an acceptable user name. If you do so, I'll let someone else deal with the request since it's not fair on you for me to decide

The article is completely unacceptable due to our requirements. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. You gave some web links, but they were not in-line references, so we can't tell what fact each is supporting. Some are clearly not acceptable as third-party refs anyway.
 * it's all about what the organisation does, little about the company itself. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, funding and expenditure. There is no indication that you even have offices somewhere.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * You have a totally unsourced section on alleged benefits, no criticisms
 * Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: offer a range of technologies which have proved their environmental effects and operational stability... unique possibility to gain recognition... save test costs... more uniform competitive conditions and makes them more calculable.


 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. that's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to your site.
 * the article was a copyright violation. The German text you translated appeared to be copied from at least this page. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There is no such disclaimer on that text. I'm sure you are aware that translations of copyright material are still copyright. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when editing this article, and you must declare it. You are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are an employee paid directly or indirectly by the organisation, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:     . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

I'm sorry that this is all bad news. You won't be the first German speaker to fall foul of our rules on user names, sourcing, copyright and conflict of interest, and I don't imagine you will be the last.

You can still leave a message on this page, and I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~ when you post it. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This should help against the copyvio problem. --Flominator (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that. Although the copyright rules on German Wikipedia are different to ours (no commercial licence), the OTRS does appear to meet the en-wiki definition. That, of course still leaves all the other problems. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong. Afaik all wmf projects use a BY-SA license. Please check out the footer of de.wp --Flominator (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , you may well be right, since I don't read German, but that doesn't change the point I was making about all the other defects in the article Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, that's why I only wrote about the "copyvio problem" --Flominator (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)