Inhwiki

A tag has been placed on Sacred Gin, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sacred Gin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not established. Appears to promote the brand. references do not constitute independent reliable sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Sacred Gin, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that you are Ian Hunt of Sacred Gin, based on your user name. You appear to have a Conflict of interest relating to this product, and are not very familiar with wikipedia rules. I strongly suggest that you spend some time here as a reader and editor before starting your article, and get to know what constitutes a notable subject. Presently the Sacred Gin wiki appears simply to promote the product, and the articles mentioned in support of its notability are not significant WP:secondary sources. I would edit the article to sort out the references, but it's likely to get deleted soon anyway. Please don't take this personally: the wikipedia community has certain ideas on what should be included, and for the moment Sacred Gin does not meet the criteria. In the future, maybe, but not now. When you think the product has achieved notability, you may consider requesting an article on it by someone else: if you are too close to a subject you're unlikely to take a neutral point of view. thanks TrulyBlue (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I can assure you I am NOT Ian Hunt. The Hampstead & Highgate Express is also most certainly a reliable secondary source, and the significant coverage on page 3 yesterday does represent NOTABILITY. I also think that your focus on trying to get this deleted is inconsistent with the treatment of pages such as Bombay Sapphire's and Hendrick's Gins' (and many others) which are obviously self promotional - they cite their own sources/blogs which have conflict of interest.

The contributions I have made, particularly with respect to new and unusual distillation methods are very unusual and noteworthy. In the last 2 days there have been 800 hits per day on this article. Please don't be overzealous.best wishesInhwiki

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inhwiki for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. MuZemike 06:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)I have read the notes, and wish to defend myself vigourously against this claim of sockpuppetry with smhiac and showley. Please check your evidnce carefully (you will find I am telling the truth.)Please remove this block.

It appears that you have been found guilty of sockpuppetry. I recognize that Sacred Gin may be in the vanguard of a new phenomenon of microdistilleries, but the way in which this wiki has been created has been all wrong. Please take your time to understand wikipedia, and wait for Sacred Gin to become notable before demanding a wiki. I have no particular axe to grind, other than wanting wikipedia to be a neutral ground for articles about notable subjects. Please assume good faith and get to understand wikipedia before creating further antagonism with the wikipedia community. Best regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi TrulyBlue. Of all contributors so far I would expect you to get your facts right. This is an accusation, not a finding of guilt (or does that not matter to you?) I have asked for an investigation and will be exonerated. To say that you have no particular axe to grind is not reflected by the tone of your comment here, frankly.

I was referring to the result of an investigation (not instigated by me, nor with my involvement) which resulted in the banning of two usernames as sockpuppets of yours. Nothing to do with me: I'm just trying to help you understand that wikipedia is not friendly towards articles that promote products that are not notable, nor towards those who charge ahead with such articles without understanding the rules and etiquette. By the way, it's normal to reply to messages on one's own talk page with a message on the talk page of the other person, so that they will automatically be notified. If you stick around on wikipedia you'll learn the rules and are more likely to produce an article that meets the various criteria without provoking the ire of other editors. Regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to respond on your talk page, but I have been unfairly blocked from doing so. No investigation has been made, and the MuZemike guy that blocked me isn't an admin apparently. Seems to be a user with more powers than me. I note that people have been complaining about him exceeding his authority. He has apparently banned me and the other 2 users without an investigation, and I know this because I know that the other 2 users are not actually me - just accused of being - wrongly. Maybe you could help put this right, as I am locked out.

User:MuZemike didn't block you, he/she just raised the issue and two independent admins concurred with their view and blocked the relevant accounts. I don't know what complaints against MuZemike you're referring to: I don't see any on the talk page. To contest the block you can try the advice on defending yourself, I don't know which, if any, of these actions are possible if you've already been blocked. You did have an opportunity to defend yourself previously, but chose to write on your own talk page rather on the page for the investigation, so it's all a bit late now. After your previous attacks on me, I'm sure you'll understand that I don't feel particularly inclined to take up the case on your behalf. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inhwiki2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)