User talk:FinTechFuture

Your submission at Articles for creation: FuturePay (September 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:FuturePay and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! FuturePay, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Username and COI

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "FuturePay", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to represent an entity with which you're associated, and raises conflict of interest concerns, per WP:COI. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOAP is relevant here, too. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:FuturePay

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Draft:FuturePay, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I had done everything the administrators had asked, I removed the promotional parts and left only statements. I have had literally just a few minutes between submitting the draft, being notified of the necessary changes, and having my account blocked. I am not trying to break Wikipedia's rules, I am just unfamiliar with them. What can I do to have the account unblocked? You describe it as persistent vandalism but all I did was try to submit a page which you flag as promotional, so I changed it. That is hardly persistent. Do you have an explanation of what I did wrong? regards, Isaac

Decline reason:

You won't be ublocked unless you agree to stop trying to create an article about a company that clearly doesn't meet WP:CORP notability requirements.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:22, 11 September 2015 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Thanks for your response Jaime. I'm happy to agree to stop trying to create that article, I've been reading the page you linked and I have a few questions about notability so I don't run into these problems next time. How many independent sources will I need before a company is consider notable? And if I have an independent article, can I write a short article that only references the independent source? That is, can I start to build up an article in portions as independent articles come out? Hi Drmies, did you see the conversation Jamie and I have started? perhaps you have some input as well. Additionally, can you explain why you are against unblock me? I am starting to learn the rules and have agreed to not create the same article until there is more notability. (although I do have some questions about notability

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= Thanks for your response Jaime. I'm happy to agree to stop trying to create that article, I've been reading the page you linked and I have a few questions about notability so I don't run into these problems next time. How many independent sources will I need before a company is consider notable? And if I have an independent article, can I write a short article that only references the independent source? That is, can I start to build up an article in portions as independent articles come out? Hi Drmies, did you see the conversation Jamie and I have started? perhaps you have some input as well. Additionally, can you explain why you are against unblock me? I am starting to learn the rules and have agreed to not create the same article until there is more notability. (although I do have some questions about notability |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= Thanks for your response Jaime. I'm happy to agree to stop trying to create that article, I've been reading the page you linked and I have a few questions about notability so I don't run into these problems next time. How many independent sources will I need before a company is consider notable? And if I have an independent article, can I write a short article that only references the independent source? That is, can I start to build up an article in portions as independent articles come out? Hi Drmies, did you see the conversation Jamie and I have started? perhaps you have some input as well. Additionally, can you explain why you are against unblock me? I am starting to learn the rules and have agreed to not create the same article until there is more notability. (although I do have some questions about notability |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= Thanks for your response Jaime. I'm happy to agree to stop trying to create that article, I've been reading the page you linked and I have a few questions about notability so I don't run into these problems next time. How many independent sources will I need before a company is consider notable? And if I have an independent article, can I write a short article that only references the independent source? That is, can I start to build up an article in portions as independent articles come out? Hi Drmies, did you see the conversation Jamie and I have started? perhaps you have some input as well. Additionally, can you explain why you are against unblock me? I am starting to learn the rules and have agreed to not create the same article until there is more notability. (although I do have some questions about notability |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

See WP:CORP for relevant guidelines and WP:RS for more information about what constitutes a good source (e.g., independent vs press release, in-depth coverage versus a passing mention, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Jamie, the page you linked me to did not specifically say how many but I get the impression it is not a matter of quantity of sources but rather quality. What are some steps I can go through to build back your trust that I will follow the rules now that I better understand them, and get you to unblock me? Obviously, step one is agreeing to not try and write the article until more notability is built up Whoops, I thought I was supposed to create a new "unblock" section each time I made an update. And yes I am willing to also agree to go through the AFC process, the article wizard is quite a helpful tool

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= Hi Jamie, the page you linked me to did not specifically say how many but I get the impression it is not a matter of quantity of sources but rather quality. What are some steps I can go through to build back your trust that I will follow the rules now that I better understand them, and get you to unblock me? Obviously, step one is agreeing to not try and write the article until more notability is built up Whoops, I thought I was supposed to create a new "unblock" section each time I made an update. And yes I am willing to also agree to go through the AFC process, the article wizard is quite a helpful tool |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= Hi Jamie, the page you linked me to did not specifically say how many but I get the impression it is not a matter of quantity of sources but rather quality. What are some steps I can go through to build back your trust that I will follow the rules now that I better understand them, and get you to unblock me? Obviously, step one is agreeing to not try and write the article until more notability is built up Whoops, I thought I was supposed to create a new "unblock" section each time I made an update. And yes I am willing to also agree to go through the AFC process, the article wizard is quite a helpful tool |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= Hi Jamie, the page you linked me to did not specifically say how many but I get the impression it is not a matter of quantity of sources but rather quality. What are some steps I can go through to build back your trust that I will follow the rules now that I better understand them, and get you to unblock me? Obviously, step one is agreeing to not try and write the article until more notability is built up Whoops, I thought I was supposed to create a new "unblock" section each time I made an update. And yes I am willing to also agree to go through the AFC process, the article wizard is quite a helpful tool |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

First of all, only one unblock request at a time please. Generally speaking, an article would need at least three third-party reliable sources with non-trivial coverage to easily pass notability checks. Currently, I see one that would probably count toward a non-trivial RS, and one that would not, in that it only gives a passing mention to the company. I'd also suggest agreeing to go through the WP:AFC process versus creating the article yourself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought I was supposed to create a new "unblock" section each time I made an update. And yes I am willing to also agree to go through the AFC process, the article wizard is quite a helpful tool

Help me!

Please help me with... Ensuring my sources are independent, reliable, and verifiable. I am not certain about the quality of these sources and would like some feedback if they are good enough to be used to write a new wiki article: http://shoppingkim.com/online-stores-that-accept-futurepay-to-buy-now-pay-later/ https://www.optimum7.com/internet-marketing/programming-2/futurepay-integration-with-volusion-bigcommerce-and-shopify-selling-expensive-products-online.html http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/futurepay-integrates-with-commerce-guys-providing-new-payment-method-for-over-30000-online-retailers-using-drupal-commerce-513526321.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/futurepay-integrates-with-commerce-guys-providing-new-payment-method-for-over-30000-online-retailers-using-drupal-commerce-239246101.html

FinTechFuture (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC) None of those would help:

• Shoppingkim Non-notable blog. With a few exceptions, blogs do not meet WP:RS
• Optimum7 No; testimonial from non-notable marketing company
• Press release No
• Press release No

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)