Dippoldtheoptician
Speedy deletion nomination of Wilkinsons...the Opticians
editHello Dippoldtheoptician,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Wilkinsons...the Opticians for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding your "anger" at the above deletion, you may want to have a look at a few policies, starting with WP:NBUSINESS, WP:COI. You are not the first person to start an article on the local business you own/work for, and you will not be the last, but Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- PS. Your assertion is that this is a "major UK optician chain". According to your website you have 5 shops in Kent. While this may be an entirely honourable local business, Wikipedia requires it to be first covered by independent sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your claim that you are not employed or own the aforementioned honourable establishment is noted. However, even assuming that you are telling the truth (1) the article contained absolutely zero indication of meeting the notability criteria (delete A7) and (2) resembled nearly every other promotional WP:SPAM that people try to be insert. If you're polite, you might be able to ask user:NawlinWiki to "userfy" it, before it can be run through WP:AFC. Note that it will almost certainly fail WP:AFC, so you'd be further wasting everyone's time and this might further raise your blood pressure. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Wilkinsons...the Opticians
editHello, Dippoldtheoptician,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Wilkinsons...the Opticians should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinsons...the Opticians .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinsons...the Opticians, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice
editHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Your page
editHey there :) I saw, when perusing the AfD logs, that your page was nominated for deletion, and you seem to not be happy with it. Right now, you've not indicated notability in a Wikipedia sense. Notability here means, in short, having multiple instances of significant coverage in multiple major independent reliable sources. There is no other way for notability to be established, not because "7th largest" or any other facts you may be able to present. If you have any more questions, or want any more help, feel free to reply here and I'll answer :) gwickwiretalkediting 19:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)- Please use the time to actually read WP:N and WP:RS and understand Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm kinda at a loss for words. I offered to help you fix and make your article better, and you turn around and just recreate it repeatedly, which got you blocked. Then you go create a new account, violating our policies, to do the same thing. I'm going to say one more time that I am perfectly willing to help you fix this article if you're willing to work with me. I'll do my best to help, but I can't do that if you're going to continue this kind of behavior. Hope it works out. gwickwiretalkediting 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked
editI'm a Wikipedia administrator. I've been one for nearly a decade. It's my role to defend Wikipedia from those who seek to damage it, or who seek to misuse it for their own gain. In the discussions above, it was made entirely clear to you that your conduct at Wikipedia has been inappropriate. When you were blocked from editing (a radical step we do not take lightly) this was intended to convey to you the seriousness of these messages. By creating user:Mr Dr Teacakes and again re-adding the same material you're well aware is unacceptable, you've shown you're not interested in engaging in a civilised discussion. So I've changed your block to be indefinite. That doesn't mean infinite, but you won't be unblocked until you can persuade administrators that you're willing to behave in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. If you create more abusive alternate accounts, we'll simply block them. If you try to recreate the article again, in whatever name, we'll simply delete it again. We've been doing this for years, and you have exactly zero chance of forcing your will on us. All you're doing is making the business you're trying to promote look worse and worse. Wikipedia is built by consensus and discussion, and no-one gets what they want by any other means. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)