User talk:VirtualOrchard

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, VirtualOrchard, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few key questions:
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Max Semenik (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I had not previously read fully the criteria for selecting a username. Yes, I do understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a business directory and was just using an existing cider reference (Aspall Cider) as a template to record the fact that Buckinghamshire also has a cidery which is notable for the fact that it is not traditionally regarded as a cider making region. To not acknowledge that this is now a notable cider region would not give a balanced view across Wikipedia of the extent of cider making across the UK. I will ensure any references that I make are consistent with other entries and are merely factual. Rgds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.216.122 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:VirtualOrchard/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:VirtualOrchard/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Bob Re-born (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Listen guys, there's seems to be a serious case of double standards here. What I have written is no different to what has been published for other UK cider producers other than I have not tried to pretend that I am not the producer of the cider. My copy for Virtual Orchard was almost identical to Aspall Cider yet you have not questioned the intention of that publisher/contributor or about 40 others of a similar nature... and probably 80% of the entire content of Wikipedia! You are seriously at risk of diminishing the integrity of Wikipedia. Please explain what I have done that is any different to the other producers, especially the major producers of cider that you seem to have accepted unlimitless articles without challenge!!!


 * Attacking or questioning the integrity of Wikipedia editors will get you absolutely nowhere fast. I suggest you read WP:COI, which deals with people pushing/spamming Wikipedia with their own personal or business interests. Your username makes it quite clear that you are linked with this company. As such you should not be writing about it. If it really is notable then at some point somebody will come along and write an article about it. Until then it is best if you stay clear. There is a very high likelihood that people not connected to the company have written some of the other cider articles (as is the case, thankfully, for most of the articles on Wikipedia). --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, are you guys really that naïve that you don't think the likes of Bulmers and Magners (to remain cider specific) don't have people adding info about their products on Wikipedia for them? The whole point of an encyclopedia is, and I quote The Oxford English Dictionary "A book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." Nothing I have posted to date could be construed as non fact or not within the scope of that definition. If you wish to arbitrarily determine what constitutes 'information' then you are nothing short of applying political bias or intent to suit your own agenda. And, if you block my entries based upon your own subjective criteria then what value or integrity does Wikipedia have?