User talk:BlogUpp

Welcome!

Hello, BlogUpp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! A new name 2008 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of BlogUpp

A tag has been placed on BlogUpp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at BlogUpp. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: Wikipedia usernames are for individuals, not teams as your post to Talk:BlogUpp states. Usernames are also not supposed to be promotional in nature which yours is.. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogupp

Okay, I went ahead and deleted the article - I can move it to your userspace iff it can reasonably be done up to demonstrate it merits inclusion. Please read WP:FAQ/Business, and have anyone who is editing register a separate account. Roll accounts, such as one for your company, are expressly forbidden. Wily D 16:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY @Blogupp & @Username

Ok, thanks Wily and A new name 2008 for your prompt actions and replies.

I've just submitted a request to change the user name, as per the recommendations of A new name 2008.

As for the "notability", I'm still not sure what is meant. In the deletion suggestions for the administrator, there was specified to check Google. Please do so on Google search to check all the references. In the Wikipedia article I've just mentioned the references most relevant and detailed, even though originating from our blog. As said in the talk of BlogUpp, there are situations when only the author of the concept can give a full picture.

Thank you. Hope we can resolve this situation. Merry Christmas to You! BlogUpp (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the essential deal is this: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, as best we can. We explicitly shun taking the authors'/creators' own opinions and descriptions, and prefer instead reliable, 3rd party sources which have a good reputation for fact checking and editorial independence. It is essentially impossible for vested interests to do this perfectly. If only the authors of a concept can give a full picture, Wikipedia probably is not the place to be publicising it. Wily D 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely read and re-read the business FAQ I pointed you towards. Writing about yourself is an uphill swim in the culture around here. Editors experience what I'll call widespread paranoia about spamming & advertisements of all sorts, the use of Wikipedia to generate publicity and a host of related things. Treading carefully is well advised. Wily D 17:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Wily:Thanks for your recommendations. I've read the pointed FAQ, and understood it. We all have policies, and there are always multiple interpretations. Please clarify: when thousands of independent sources have written about BlogUpp, is it notable from your point of view? Please advise: is the original article neutral enough and informative, rather than look as an advertisement? As mentioned in the talk at BlogUpp, I intended to make it such, and I'd be very appreciative if you could let me know in few words on my mistakes, to know at least for future reference.

Is it an option for an established/trusted Wikipedian to derive from my proposed article, and build an independent one on BlogUpp? BlogUpp (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the amount of external sourcing needed for notability is not quite a clearcut manner, because the depth of sources, the quality of sources, and so forth all enter into it. A couple of nontrivial sources focused on BlogUpp is usually enough, if they're good sources. Newspapers, magazines, books are good here. Random websites are extremely bad. I am not sure I could offer a good example of "minimum notability", as there is some subjectiveness in this.

Wikipedia:Requested articles in principle allows for articles to be requested. In practice, I think it moves very slowly, but I'm not sure. I've never used it.

As for what makes an "advertising impression" versus an "encyclopaedia impression", this is a little more difficult to quantify. There are several bits here "Sourced entirely or largely from company website." is a flag in this regard. "Created by a user with a conflict of interest" is a flag in this regard. "Kind of user-manualish" is a flag in this regard. I'll try and find a good comparison if I can. Wily D 18:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of closure

I'll try to take all these constructively, although it's somewhat difficult.

Concerning the name change procedure, and the comments there - my intention was to have it like "i[User]" rather than "I[User]" - but the system automatically capitalizes the 1st letter. So, as an workaround I just placed a "dot" in the beginning, and the result should have been more or less as expected - ".i[User]"...

Just for future reference I'd like to keep the original article in my user space, expecting for it not to be mercilessly deleted from there too ;)

Hopefully other encyclopaedia quality contribution intentions receive warmer attitude.

Best regards, and all the best to Wikipedia. BlogUpp (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate to admit it, there's probably no way to get a worse welcome around here than to show up and write an article abotu your business. Yours has probably even been a little softer than is typical. The username thing I don't totally grok, but that's not really an area I administrate.

For what it's worth, I'll restore the article and move it to your userspace. But it's likely to be deleted at some future date if people generally believe you're not intending to fix it up to a mainspace-able version and port it back. There's some policy or another around here about that WP:NOT#WEBHOST? (sorry for the acronym), but the short of it is that editors are always concerned anything they think is used for promotional purposes and whatnot. Anyways, I'd be glad to give you what pointers I can (though please don't mistake the administrator title for meanings I have any actual power to decide things - it's just a technical tool that means I'm trusted to implement decisions decided in discussion, for the most part). If you have any questions, please ask, and I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Wily D 15:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlogUpp/BlogUpp

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:BlogUpp/BlogUpp, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account, BlogUpp, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it—see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, misleading, or related to a 'real-world' group or organization. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can usually still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far more easily allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
Alternatively, you can "abandon" the contributions under this username and create a new account, which is much faster and easier, especially if you have few or no edits.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your user talk page or emailing the administrator who blocked you. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]