User talk:Ooni

The article Angelfish (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of WP:notability. No secondary sources about Angelfish.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angelfish (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelfish (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. noq (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

There are two issues here: alleged sockpuppetry, and notability. All the individuals who made keep comments in the Angelfish (software) AfD discussion think Angelfish is notable, and were all promptly classified as sock puppets. I'd like to hear how that conclusion was reached. The common thread among all these individuals is that they all think Angelfish is notable. If the page is going to be deleted, I respectfully disagree and will consider the constructive criticism. But banning accounts is a gross overreaction.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:52, 18 June 2013 (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.

Comment from blocking admin

If you're gonna rally your buddies to save "your article," you could at least send them to the right page. The AFD discussion is that way.

SPI is the other way. Toddst1 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my point. If I were "rallying the troops" I would have sent them to the right place. Ooni (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was unanimously ratified by the community. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading