User talk:Vhwbundesverband

Your submission at Articles for creation: vhw - Bundesverband für Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung e.V. (March 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vhw - Bundesverband für Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung e.V..
To edit the submission, 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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Vhwbundesverband. 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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vhw - Bundesverband für Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung e.V., 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. It also appears that your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization, person or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest. You may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you.

--Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

RFritsche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Sorry for not beeing aware of correct username policy. Won't happen again. Vhwbundesverband (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After extensive attempts to assist, the editor still wishes to promote. Even after a week of waiting a reply, this has not changed the panda ₯’ 23:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have received an email response from this user and I am considering this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there's more than just the username. I'm concerned that unblock was requested by e-mail, as that means the rest of the community does not see responses to the key questions above. Of course, not responding on this talkpage has meant that this unblock request has stayed opened much longer than it should have. I have pinged User:Daniel Case to remind him that we're still waiting for his follow up. Within a day or so, I'll decline this as non-WP:GAB-compliant, as it most definitely does not address all of the primary reasons for the block: promo and coi are unaddressed. the panda ₯’ 10:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda: Well, the thrust of this is: First, the user shouldn't have been blocked to begin with as they had only posted to AfC, where we generally exempt people from the username policy provided that's the only place they edit, since making a submission there is sort of an indication you're not planning to stick around long term. But Orangemike blocked anyway.

My discussions with them have largely established that they feel the AfC was wrongly rejected, since there's an equivalent article on this company at the German Wikipedia. I am unsure about what their intentions are if unblocked even though they might.

I have also been busy the last week or so and have not had the time to really consider this; I won't be less busy until at least Monday night North American Eastern time (and today is not good, either, since I have to go out for much of it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daniel Case, thanks for the update. Vhwbundesverband, there's a few different issues here, and I believe that I can help you move forward.

Your original username was 100% invalid, as per the username policy, no matter where you tried to draft the article. However, you're clearly willing to change it, so that's a good thing
The English Wikipedia has an extremely tighter set of requirements for notability than the German Wikipedia - we do accidentally get a lot of editors from there who try and replicate an article in English, only to have it removed
We're also always picky about WP:COI - maybe not always in WP:AFC space, but beware that it prevents you from viewing things objectively.

If you're able to respond to Daniel's 3 questions above, please do - however please keep all conversations on-wiki so that things can be actionned appropriately, and transparency is maintained. I have this talkpage watchlisted now, and will be watching for your reply the panda ₯’ 13:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell them to use this space—it has occurred to me that they might not be aware they could still edit it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda and Daniel Case:As being new with contributions, I was not aware of differing restrictions of German and English wiki. My apologies. However, of course I am willing to answer here and try for the three questions posed by User:Daniel Case. First, this article is about a non-commercial association which is doing scientific research and is providing training for municipalities. It is not a business like many other companies which can actually be found on wiki. Second, this text is a translation of German wiki. The German wiki article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vhw_%E2%80%93_Bundesverband_f%C3%BCr_Wohnen_und_Stadtentwicklung) was written by s.o. not related to the association. However, we had to confirm the validity. The information can be verified in the association's yearbook - which is by now only available in German. Therefore, I consider it being as objective as possible and, even more reliable because proofed by the associations itself. Third, referring to the associations research work, which is focused on the common good by aiming to strengthen urban societies and social inclusion, I think it is worth to be mentioned on wiki. I hope this helps in reconsidering the articles publication and also the unblocking. Many thanks

Thanks for the explanation. It doesn't matter if the organization is a commercial endeavour or not, it has to meet the same strict notability as every corporation - existence is not notability, because we're not a directory of businesses or organizations. We even have WP:NOBLECAUSE that helps to extend the understanding for non-profits. Having reviewed the draft, 1) the ref's are unacceptable, and the organization suggests zero notability whatsoever. Eve if this was a notable organization according to En.Wiki standards, you - as a rep of the organization - should not write it (of course WP:MEAT prevents you from telling someone else to write it too!) the panda ₯’ 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you could help me further on that. Who ensures, that any of those articles available about companies and organisationes - no matter they are commercial or not - have not been written by anyone inside them by just picking an unsuspicious name and that? Cause in this case it would mean that beeing 'honest' about it leads to beeing blocked and this doesnt seem to be very conclusive. Second, if you wish, I' like to add more independent references. At the moment, it is not possible because of the blocking.

Oh trust me, it's typically very easy to tell :-) We don't need a matching username to block - we have blocks for Username, Username and Spam, and Spam-only. So, what you're telling me, is even now that you know that even the Founder of Wikipedia has said that "those with COI should never directly edit their pages but only propose changes on the article talkpage", you want to continue in that vein? the panda ₯’ 18:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda: I cant follow your procedure in this matter. I was answering your questions and showed my willingness to make changes to fit your policy. Your explanation of the recent blocking is not taking into account any of that. Daniel Case also expressed his disagreement of the blocking. I expressed my willingness to change the username. The blocking policy says: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". So why did you? At this point, it rather seems that you adhere to my unawareness of that mentioned policy and not taking into account neither that misunderstanding of german and english wiki policies nor the willingness to fulfill the needed changes. Furthermore, why do dozens of article about companies exist with not even any referencing and this one shouldnt even though it has quite a different content? I dont see your explanation of notability.

I'm sorry, what? I didn't block you: I declined to unblock you based on your lack of response for 10 days - besides, I'm not in a content dispute with you. Please do not use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason why your article should stay - it's likely just that we haven't got around to deleting the other junk yet. I would be 100% willing to unblock to permit the username change as long as you do not attempt to recreate the article - it's a simple restriction, and one that we offer to all those who unfortunately continue to insist on violating COI the panda ₯’ 19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda: Ok, so I misunderstood you. I do not intent to recreate the article with any other username - what makes you think of that? Neither do I intend to change it (if that is what you mean), as long as I dont have to do to fullfill the guidelines - apparently thats why we are having this talk. However, you wrote there is no content dispute but you named the unsufficient references and reffered to insufficient notability before. So where do we stand now? Many thanks

@DangerousPanda: Reffering to your justification of inactivity for the un-blocking decline I am returning that ball to you. I didnt get any reply from you since 17 days. Moreover, again your are not responding to my questions. In fact, I cant find "inactivity" in the wiki policy guidelines - to which you are reffering all the time - as a reason to proceed in the way you did. So, to maintain objectivity: I explained the content of vhw's work with it's stong public emphasis on contributing to strenghten the urban society. Is that really less notable than those dozens of commercial companies on wiki? Than this rather doesnt seem to be in general public interest as wiki was made for. Furthermore, I underlined my willingness to add more references. Therefore I find it quite irritating for an open plattform like this, if one person is deciding whether a content is notable or not. Especially if he/she is not familiar with its content. Doesnt every policy requires a case specifiy interpretation? They are doing that even in law. And please let me add, I am not in a dispute with you personally - just with your explanations and argumentation. I think the case we are having here is quite transparent which should also be considered - cause i assume you dont have that often. Regards.

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vhw - Bundesverband für Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung e.V.

Hello Vhwbundesverband. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "vhw - Bundesverband für Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung e.V.".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/vhw - Bundesverband für Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung e.V.}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]