User talk:Webauthorings

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 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 below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Hi, Howard. I won't consider your unblock request myself because that wouldn't be fair on you, but I have no objections to you being unblocked if another admin sees fit to do so. 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 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 company claims or interviewing its management. Your article had no references at all to verify the text, just a vague list of (unlinked) websites.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include:  It was one of the most functional magic sites on the net. It's easy navigation, search engine, and unique on-line concepts lead the way... 
 * The article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. 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.
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. You must declare that interest on the article talk page if you recreate

I can restore the text to a user subpage if, after reading the above, you wish me to do. Let me know here, I'm watching the page now. You may get a quicker response if you start your message with a link to my username User:Jimfbleak, which will notify me if I'm online Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also add two things to this:
 * That if you want to pursue article creation, that you only do it via WP:AfC (or ideally, not create an article for the company at all and just request it be created).
 * That you go through one of the training processes on Wikipedia like WP:TRAINING or WP:ADVENTURE. This way we can ensure that you have an overview of editing policies.
 * I also hate to say this, but I'm not really bringing up a lot of hits for the company as a whole. The article claimed it was one of the first shops of its type on the Internet, but being the first to do something does not automatically make it notable. What you'd need to establish notability are things like independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles about the site. I really never like to tell someone not to try to create an article, but I'm kind of getting the impression that trying to create an article for this company may just be a waste of time in the end. So far I'm not really bringing up anything that would show that it'd pass WP:CORP. You can still try to make the article via AfC, but I'm not really sure that it'd ever pass notability guidelines unless there are sources that aren't on the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, if you may want to see if there are other topics that you want to edit on. If you have an interest in magicians, I'm sure that there are multiple articles that could use sourcing or additional material in the articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)