User talk:DPRcori

Welcome!

Hello, DPRcori, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as QuestaWeb, Inc., may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of QuestaWeb, Inc.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on QuestaWeb, Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this 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. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, DPRcori. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article QuestaWeb, Inc., you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. Drm310 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. I advise you to deal with the issues these tags represent as ignoring or deleting them is just likely to get the article deleted. It is likely to be deleted anyway at the moment as it does not meet the Wikipedia standards for notability or inclusion. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TO Jenova20- My page DOES meet all the standards and does violate copyright in anyway! I removed the template because the issue was resolved! David Biddulph- You are extremely rude and unprofessional! I can read directions just fine and left the template up that said DO NOT REMOVE, the items I took down were removed because the issues they addressed were invalid or resolved. This article in no way differs from any other company accounts out there and all the content is original or from the references listed!— Preceding unsigned comment added by DPRcori (talk • contribs) — DPRcori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, I deleted the article. It did indicate enough importance to pass speedy deletion, though not necessarily the higher bar of actual notability The problem is that too much of it was copied from your web site, which we do not permit. I could have deleted it also as being primarily promotional.

First, of all, a Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. It was not possible to tell from the listing of sources what they said: please give exact referencing, including author, title, and place and date of publication , an indication of length and the type of material--you say these are news stories but they sound like PR or reports, and if on the web, a link. If only in print, it help to give a key quotation. From the titles given, it seems quite possible that the company may only have been mentioned. Do not link to a company web site where outside publications are listed; link to the original publication --if they are not readily available, it is permissible to add the link to the reference for convenience, but the reference must be to the original article

A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. (for example, section 5, Business outlook, does not belong in an encyclopedia.); in general, avoid all adjectives or praise or importance. Don't give a bulleted list of advantages in their applications, state briefly their key features. Don't try to describe every product in detail. talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what they have accomplished--we describe what international trade zones are with a link to the WP article on them. Don't use jargon, such as " integrated their software to offer a seamless solution" or .Remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM (permission that irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material) , the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.)

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity, and for the presence of sources that show notability. The best way of rewriting is to use the WP:Article Wizard, which will guide you towards an acceptable article if one is possible. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and with respect to the block, it will be easier and better to make use of a name that does not include PR in it. Just choose another. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the username, the parent company is DPR Group. I already reported it as a possible username violation but it failed as it distinctly features a name in it to differentiate. Nice work on the explanation ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse

Response to advice... I understand what you saying, but I really don't think anyone read what I wrote then. NOTHING was copied from the website, everything I wrote was ORIGINAL content that I spent hours working on and linking according to Wiki guidelines. It appears to me that no one actually took the time to read my article or compare it to the company site. As far as my username goes, it is NOT in violation, your guidelines clearly state that a username is ok to use as long as it contains my name in it. I would appreciate it if my account was reinstated, and that someone would allow me to repost another QuestaWeb article, I had MORE than enough sources.

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.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

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.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

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.

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 {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DPRcori (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My username is not in any viloation! My REAL NAME is Cori!! DPR is in front of my name because all other options I tried were taken. My name is not promotional, this account has been created for my personal use. Blocking my account was UNJUSTIFIED!!DPRcori (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but decisions here are not open to dispute. You will be unblocked when you select an acceptable username.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

When you write, "I would appreciate it if my account was reinstated, and that someone would allow me to repost another QuestaWeb article", you merely confirm the suspicions of the editors here that you don't want to contribut to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you wish to commit further PR on behalf of your client QuestaWeb. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my unblock refusal above; I have just reviewed the advertisement about QuestaWeb which you posted, and which has now been deleted. If you are unblocked you will not be allowed to post this or similar text here. If you wish to edit about something unconnected with your client, please say here what your editing might in that situation be about.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]