Hello, GetElated, 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 Elation Vodka, 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:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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! RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Elation Vodka 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 an organization or company, 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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #16088 was submitted on Jul 05, 2016 18:54:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

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).

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

---

Request reason:

After receiving an email about why my page that I created for my employer was blocked, I was told it was because of my user name pertaining to my account. After being given a link to rename my account, I proceeded to go there. However, because Wiki changing usernames was broken, bugged, or down for some unknown/un-given reason, I am requesting a direct dialog to change my name immediately to maintain on a timeline for my employer. I kindly ask that my user name be changed to joshua.friedman2008 I have confirmed that this name is available and willing to follow all guidelines by not recreating another account name on a different IP. I kindly ask that this matter be taken care of immediately, and my page (Elation Vodka) be reinstated.

Decline reason:

Please read WP:ADVERT and WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

---

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'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).

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

---

Request reason:

Once again requesting to be unblocked so I can create a wiki page for my client. If all I need to do is change my user name I have no problem doing so. However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKYY_vodka is a direct copy and paste replacing their information with ours. This alone is a violation of your ban policy and request that I be reinstated, and again if I have to change my username I have no problem doing so, if your page could allow me to.

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked in order to use Wikipedia for the purpose of creating a promotional page on behalf of your clients. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. (I also cannot understand why you think that the fact that you copied content from another article is somehow a reason for unblocking your account.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

---

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.

SKYY vodka easily meets WP:GNG notability requirements; the notability of Elation has not been demonstrated. Furthermore, the article for SKYY vodka was not created by a single purpose, conflict-of-interest account: [1]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@JamesBWatson clearly you did not read the article that was written then. As to why you and the rest of your administration team keep saying that I am using Wiki as a means of promotion, my article was purely fact based, and for you to indefinitely suspend my account after my site has been taken down is negligent. Also since you clearly did not read the fact based article about Elation Vodka, I used their template, again quite negligent from an admin to spew accusations of fraudulence, but then again coming from a person whose talk page is explicitly calling out trolls.

@Ohnoitsjamie are you saying that small business is not allowed to be factually presented on Wiki? I feel that is quite exclusionary. I merely stated facts created links and was planning to edit in the unbiased articles once I sourced them all. Again requesting re-evaluation and lift of my ban.

Wikipedia is not a business directory. Most small businesses do not meet our WP:GNG notability requirements (which you might have figured out had you taken the time to read WP:GNG instead of making up bizarre claims about SKYY vodka and our "ban policies," as you did in the above unblock request). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ohnoitsjamie In which case then Wiki is entitled to its exclusionary policies. In which case I am not looking for Wiki to be a business directory, as you "make up bizarre claims".

I also would like to point out that this is my first attempt at ever creating a wiki page in which case this ban is overwhelmingly severe and I took a little time to read your policies on blocking. According to your blocking policy ^[1], I neither damaged nor disrupted Wiki. I am being not only unjustly punished (which again is against your terms). Furthermore, "Blocks should not be punitive"^[2] "#4: or where there is no current conduct issue of concern.". Also to point out that there was no concern especially if this is my first ever offense.

I would also like to point this out: "The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers^[3]."

Thank you for that helpful primer on Wikipedia policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That is quite condescending. Since it sounds like I am dealing with a teenager, where should I go to deal with this as well as your conduct as an administrator? I have already screenshot your remarks and retorts and will most likely file a complaint with whomever. I find it hard to believe that you are an administrator.

A screenshot is not necessary; Wikipedia maintains a history of all edits. See Help:Page_history. Please feel free to file your report with whomever you like. I can tell you that your time would be better spent on other pursuits, like refunding your client's money and finding another way to earn a living other than advertising on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you telling me how to do my job. Good luck remaining an administrator after comments like that.

@OhnoitsJamie I apologize, for maybe getting a little hot headed. I feel better after finding the arbitration committee board, and no hard feelings, but you shouldn't be so brash to others. I wish you the best of luck! —  Preceding unsigned comment added by GetElated (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 July 2016

1. In answer to one of your comments to me above, yes, I did read the article.
2. Which administrator are you referring to as "spew[ing] accusations of fraudulence"? I haven't seen anyone doing that. In the context, it looks as though you are referring to me, but that makes no sense, as the only things that I did were (1) explaining to you that making promotional pages on behalf of clients is unacceptable, and (2) telling you that I did not understand why you thought telling us that you had copied content from another article contributed to an unblock request; neither of those has anything to do with "accusations of fraudulence".
3. What does "calling out" trolls mean? I am actually unacquainted with that expression. Presumably it is some colloquial expression in use where you are from, but not where I am from.
4. You may like to review your comments above before accusing others of being "condescending".
5. Your quoting "Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention" is perfectly true. When I first came to edit Wikipedia, I had a number of mistaken ideas about the nature of Wikipedia, and in the early days I was fairly frequently informed that things I did were out of line with Wikipedia policies, so I have every sympathy with other editors finding themselves in that situation. One of the commonest, perhaps the commonest, misconception about Wikipedia is thinking that it is an ideal place to publicise one's club, business, project, campaign, band, or anything else that one wishes to publicise. Editors come here in perfectly good faith to do that, having no reason to think it is unacceptable, and so they are likely to be quite unprepared for being blocked. I have every sympathy with editors in that position. However, moving on from there, it is possible to accept that after all what one was doing has turned out not to be in line with Wikipedia's policies. That is what I did when I found that some of my ideas about Wikipedia were mistaken. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Elation Vodka, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I am restoring the note about the declined UTRS unblock request. Notices about declined unblock requests should be left on the page as long as the block is in force, as it makes it easier for administrators assessing any future unblock requests to see the full history, without having to search through the page history. However, I am not restoring the first unblock request you posted on this page, as you retracted it without its having been reviewed by an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply