Dfenders
Notability of The DFenders
edit
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The DFenders, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The DFenders seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The DFenders, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
- avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.
You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.
Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here.--Orange Mike | Talk 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Dfenders (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Orangemike... yes I do see the conflict of interest with the name, but since all the research I did on wikipedia stated that conflicts were only discouraged because of neutral point of view, not banned entirely, I attempted to create a purely factual, unbiased article. I would gladly change my username to unblock this account, and if you have any problems with the neutrality of the article, please don't hesitate to bring them up. You could change my username to dogma_inc if that's possible. I would like this account unblocked so I can add the necessary references to the article to keep it from being deleted. There are many, many independent sources to justify this article (some of which I included the first time around, which have since been deleted for some reason)... cheers very much, and I look forward to resolving this issue.
Decline reason:
I see no reason to lift the username block, which appears justified. But only the account name is blocked, not the person. If you want to go ahead and create a new account under a different name, there should not be a problem. The name 'dogma_inc' does sound a bit corporate, and perhaps you could clarify what it means before trying to create it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
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.
Hi Wikipedia... Just wondering if anything is being done to lift my block, fix my article, etc... I have other users requesting citations for the article that I can't give them because I've been blocked from editing... I've noticed that administrators seem to just arbitrarily delete articles without actually reading them... if this wasn't the case then the notability issues would have been resolved outright, my 'conflict of interest' wouldn't have mattered because the article is not biased in any way... the whole premise of Wikipedia seems to suggest consideration of articles on a 'case by case' basis, although in reality, administrators just blindly follow the convoluted and often contradictory 'rules' without exercising actual judgment. No doubt I'll be banned for life now after expressing free speech... Dfenders (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- As EdJohnston suggested, your best bet is to create a new account without the excess baggage (and without a corporate tag to it). This name is blocked, and will remain blocked; but that's not a lifetime ban against the human being using the name. (And ad hominem attacks don't improve the quality of the interchanges either.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Mike, you'll forgive me if I seem to be conducting ad hominem attacks... My actual justifications against the proposed deletion seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Twice this article has been deleted, even though it has been specifically tailored to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability... I don't often go around quoting why things are notable, so you can bet that if I've specifically brought up several examples of how this article is notable, I've done it purely to satisfy Wikipedia's bizarre rules.
You'll have to explain to me why this article does not meet notability guidelines (or why the notability is, quote, weak), because I cannot for the life of me figure it out. The only thing I can glean from all this is that New Zealand standards simply do not stack up in a global context... In a direct comparison, The DFenders would be on major U.S. radio stations, be up for a Grammy award, and have been reported several times in major newspapers such as the Washington Post or the New York Times... Is it because New Zealand is too small and therefore insignificant in your opinion? Why even have notability guidelines if administrators can arbitrarily decide whether an article satisfies them or not? That's not an attack, that's a serious question, and I'd love to learn what the secret to getting an article to stay up is, because I can't figure it out.
I'm sure you can understand why I would be upset at your removing the references from my article, then tagging it as being weak because it has no references, and simultaneously remove my ability to edit it... Why not work with people to create better articles, rather than working against them and leaving them to try and figure out which guidelines they really need to satisfy, and which guidelines are simply going to be ignored come review? Dfenders (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)