Aurindam.g

Your submission at Articles for creation: SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification (September 25)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification.
• 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 . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Aurindam.g, 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!

Reply

Hi, I hereby assure you that I wont put direct link to my organization's site. It was used as a reference for many of my edits, which were based on the e-books published by Advance Selling Skills Academy. But if it has violated your policies, I humbly apologise for the same. It wont happen again. So kindly unblock.

Hello, Aurindam.g. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#Review_of_SCOTSMAN_theory_of_sales_qualification.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NOTE: please ensure you log-in to your Wikipedia account when posting messages, as your question at Helpdesk was left anonymously since you weren't logged-in, but I presume it was your question. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sales. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Direct selling with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Sales. ///EuroCarGT 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was trying to improve the content of articles related to Sales. The article on Selling is very similar to article of 'Sales' ( actually it requires a merger). That's the reason I just copy pasted my edited section to Selling as well. Direct Selling is a part of my article. So I included the same on Direct Selling article. There's no intention of spamming. Please take a look of my submission and reconsider. I've used e-books from Advance Selling Skills Academy (www.as-sa.co.uk) as reference. Please help me to get unblocked and I sincerely apologize if it has violated your guidelines unintentionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurindam.g (talk • contribs) 07:05, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but adding links and promotional material back to the company you appear to work for is a very bad idea. I can't imagine that these links are reliable sources. Since you seem to intend to continue promoting your firm, I do not see that unblocking you is a wise choice. Kuru (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2013 (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.

I added the unblock template to the above request. --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 29 September 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I've read the policies of editing more in details and hereby confirming you that unnecesary links to external pages wont be repeated. Please unblock

Decline reason:

Adding links was only part of the reason you were blocked. You were also adding advertising-style text to articles on topics with which you may have a conflict of interest. What topics do you intend to work on if the block were lifted? Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2013 (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'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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I'll like to work on Sales, Direct Sales and articles related to Sales. I have understood the wiki policies in details. So please unblock

Please include a decline or accept reason.

---

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.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification

Hello Aurindam.g. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification".

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 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/SCOTSMAN theory of sales qualification}}, 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. HasteurBot (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)