Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Dmsfiris/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dmsfiris! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Dmsfiris/sandbox, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 deleted 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DoubleGrazing. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:AspectCart, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 deleted 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Subject: Urgent Appeal: Review and Rectification of Unjust Ban on AspectCart by AspectSoft.

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to urgently appeal the unjust ban that has been imposed on this account and AspectCart wiki page. AspectCart is a software product designed to meet the needs of a diverse range of users, offering a free trial to enable individuals to validate the claims made about its capabilities.

It is deeply troubling AspectCart wiki page, a description of a software product, has been subjected to a ban, especially considering the fact that other similar companies Wordpress, OpenCart and other dozen of other e-commerce platforms have their own wiki pages. Restricting the ability of independent companies like AspectSoft to have a software product page undermines the principles of fairness and impartiality that Wikipedia stands for.

I urge the administrators to reconsider the ban. This action not only ensures that accurate and comprehensive information is available to Wikipedia users but also upholds the principles of fairness and equality for all companies seeking to share information, for the benefit of the public.

I am willing to provide any additional information or clarification necessary to support this appeal. I sincerely hope that you will give this matter the attention it deserves and take swift action to rectify the unjust ban.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dimitrios S. Sfyris dmsfiris

Decline reason:

You have some grave (yet common) misunderstandings about Wikipedia.

• Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do, nor is it for merely providing information. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If you just want to provide information about your company's products, you should do that on your own website and social media, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about your products, not what your company says about them.
• Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic in any way. Those articles are not owned or controlled by the topic(Joe Biden or his staff did not write the article about him). People associated with a topic should not be directly editing about it; employees of a company are required by the Terms of Use to disclose that status, see WP:PAID. Accusing WordPress employees of editing about their company or products without disclosing it is a serious accusation. If you have evidence of this, please see WP:PAID for how you can provide that evidence(do not post it on wiki). Otherwise, please withdraw the accusation. Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate(which you would be unaware of as a new user).
• You won't be unblocked to edit about your company or its products at this time. That doesn't mean forever, but you will first need to build up a good edit history of edits in areas unrelated to your conflict of interest, before we permit you to indirectly contribute about your company/its products, to show us that you understand relevant policies(and what I have discussed here). Please tell what topics you might edit about. If you are only interested in editing about your company/its products, this is the end of the road. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2024 (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.

Dear 331dot,

Thank you for your response and for taking the time to address my concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my intentions and better understand Wikipedia's guidelines.

I understand now that Wikipedia is not a platform for businesses to promote themselves, but rather a space for summarizing information from independent reliable sources. I acknowledge that articles should be written by editors unconnected to the topic and that any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed, as per Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

Regarding the accusation about WordPress employees editing articles without disclosure, I apologize if my statement came across as an accusation. I do not have evidence to support such a claim. However, it's worth noting that it is common for software companies to have product pages on Wikipedia, where they mention product features, version numbers, and other relevant details.

I am committed to abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I am willing to demonstrate this by contributing to areas unrelated to my company or its products. I am interested in editing topics related to technology, science, and current events, among others.

I understand that unblocking me to edit about my company or its products is not an option at this time. However, I am willing to build a positive edit history in other areas to show my understanding of relevant policies.

Thank you again for your guidance, and I look forward to contributing constructively to Wikipedia in the future. Dmsfiris (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChatGPT, please let Dmsfiris know that they'll have to write their own text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using AI to polish our human staff reply to your template responses isn't worse than your unfair, unjust suspencion of our account on the grounds of spamming (without any history of violations), despite our commitment in our answer to abide by Wikipedia standards. It shows your partiality and exposes you as unfit to your role at best, or a plant at worse, to gatekeep what is written only by what you claim as notable sources, since you don't know me personally or have asked that I provide published material, not caring whether I have it in this article or any other article I can edit or contribute. The conflict of interest you mention I can understand on the topic of our software product (which truly I wasn't aware of), but your stance to ban and subsequently mock us is innapropriate and doesn't constitute a reason to ban our account indefinately, especially for a new acount, which you should be able to guide and benefit from our willingness to contribute to knowledge. Failing to understand the above makes us unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia, what we thought was a reliable and friendly community of volunteers. Dmsfiris (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]