User talk:Adrius333

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Adrius333, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as ATICA, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ATICA[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ATICA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to requests at Talk:ATICA[edit]

I'm afraid the article was still promotional, so it had to be deleted again. I'm going to give you some examples of issues the article had. (Note: This is not an exhaustive list, so don't figure "Oh, tweak these couple things and we're good to put it back.") "In this short period of time, ATICA has gotten the support of several influential DJs..." Sales brochure stuff. "Influential" according to whom? And who exactly are they? We don't use vagaries like that, we use concrete, specific facts. "ATICA have shared with the public the whole team’s passion for integrating 3D and computer graphics into a live show...". Uh, no, no "passion". "...mixed by Pablo in front of a crowd". "Garcia" or "Rosacruz", not "Pablo", whichever he's more commonly known under. We don't use first names, we use a formal tone so we use first and last name at first mention and last only thereafter. "...prestigious Spanish Jazz School..." No extraneous adjective overload. "Leading", "prestigious", "valuable", "award-winning", etc., are all right out.

You seem to have taken a significant and exclusive interest in this article. Often, that indicates someone is being paid to edit. We don't forbid that practice, but there are some disclosures that anyone who is being paid, employed, or compensated to edit Wikipedia needs to make. If that would apply to you, this is mandatory.

You also mentioned referencing. It's not there. The cited "references" link to either just recordings of there (those do nothing whatever for notability), or to often anonymous and quite blog-looking references. Those don't count toward notability unless the publications would meet our standards for reliability, and it doesn't look like any you cited do. It's not enough to just put a lot of references, they have to be good, high-quality references, reliable, independent of the article subject, and covering the subject in reasonable depth. If that type of reference material doesn't exist about this subject (and to the best of my ability to find, it doesn't), we can't have an article about them at all. But regardless, it'd have to be a lot better than anonymous music blogs.

But in any case, articles must be strictly neutral in tone and content. We do not permit promotion or marketing, even on subjects that are clearly notable. That includes "get the word out" campaigns—Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source and lag behind, so by the time something gets here, the word should already be well out.

Prior to making any further edits at all, please answer with a clear "yes" or "no" as to whether you are being paid, compensated, or employed to edit on this subject. We can go from there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thanks for your comments and I'm sorry to hear that the article did not mean Wikipedia's standards. Please note that I am NOT getting paid, compensated, or employed in any way by ATICA. The reason why I do have interest in publishing this article is because Pablo is a good friend of mine, and I believe that his project ATICA should have an article in Wikipedia since it is an emerging notorious artist. I appreciate the concise explanation, and will work to fix the language and referencing issues. Please confirm that I am good to edit the article and I will do my best to fix the issues you have presented. Thanks again for your patience and I will keep learning about how Wikipedia works.

Adrius333 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're "friends" with DealDash, too. Or perhaps your sock puppet account is, that you accidentally posted your response with here. Needless to say, I'll be scrutinizing that article too. We don't prohibit paid editing, just require that it be disclosed, so it's really better to just be honest about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I am sorry about the misunderstanding. Please note that my full time job is as a Community Manager for DealDash, for which I have the other account (Dd Adrian). I have been open and honest about my position on Talk:DealDash acknowledging from the start of the discussion that I am employed by the company. That having been said, the truth is that I am NOT employed or remunerated in any way by ATICA. They are just friends of mine, who I decided to help with their Wikipedia page since I already know the basics of Wikipedia formatting from my experience with DealDash. That´s all it is, helping out some friends with their presence on Wikipedia. If I was employed or compensated in any way, I would have said so, in the same way as I did on Talk:DealDash.

The reason why I created the new account User:Adrius333 is because User:Dd Adrian is linked to my work email address, and I did not want to use it for non-work related matters. I did accidentally post about ATICA with my DealDash account, but that was a mistake and in any way I was trying to benefit from the multiple accounts, or hide it in any way. I hope you understand that I just wanted to keep both accounts separate. DealDash is my full time employment and I have been open and honest about it on Talk:DealDash. I would have also said so if this was the case for ATICA, but the truth is that they´re not employing me, and they are just good friends I wanted to help. I do apologize since perhaps creating two accounts wasn´t the best practice, but please note this wasn´t done in bad faith, just wanted to separate work (DealDash) from ATICA related stuff. Hope you understand. Could we at least release the block on User:Dd Adrian so I can continue the conversation on Talk:DealDash, where it is clear that I am an employee of the company? If I make more edits for ATICA, I´ll do so from the same account so that it´s clear that it is the same person, if you think that is the best practice. Thanks again and my sincere apologies.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Adrius333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what was done wrong in this case, and I am looking forward to fixing the misunderstanding. I failed to make clear that User:Adrius333 and User:Dd Adrian were both my accounts, but I never tried to hide it either. When asked if I was employed or remunerated by ATICA, the answer was NO, which is the truth. They are just friends of mine who I am helping since they´re not familiar with Wikipedia formatting. However, if you go to my contribution with the User:Dd Adrian account on Talk:DealDash on 26 July 2016, you can see that I start the conversation by mentioning that I am a Community Manager for DealDash. The reason for creating a second account was not at all deceiving, and having two accounts has never been used to my favour in any of the talk pages. I just wanted to keep my DealDash work account separate from editing the ATICA article, which is something that I was doing during my free time in a non-remunerated way. Would it make sense to have both accounts open again and use the User alternative account template to make clear that these are both my accounts, as stated in WP:SOCK#LEGIT? Thanks for taking the time to read my explanation Adrius333 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked on condition that this account is clearly linked to the primary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]