Lemansbjw
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Webdisc, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://tenmax.com/webdisc/features.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Webdisc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant 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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright problems edit
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Webdisc, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.tenmax.com/webdisc/home.htm et al. As a copyright violation, Webdisc appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Webdisc has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Webdisc and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Webdisc with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Webdisc.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Exxolon (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Webdisc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Webdisc and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Exxolon (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Webdisc, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Webdisc and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
October 2008 edit
A tag has been placed on Webdisc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. One more re-creation of this deleted content without addressing the reasons for its deletion will result in a block. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocked edit
Lemansbjw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i am not spamming, I'm just trying to put our company information on this site. I did not vandalize anything. This content has been authorized by our company. Please lift this ridiculous ban.
Decline reason:
You're trying to use Wikipedia to advertise and promote the company. It doesn't matter if it's "authorized by [the] company," it's still advertising.— Metros (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (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.
Lemansbjw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How is recording Ten Years of software history advertising? We would like some recognition in the wikipedia world for work that has been performed throughout the world. In association with almost every government in the WORLD!!! In NO WAY are we ADVERTISING!!!! Simply stating factual information about our company. LIFT THE BAN! Being that we are a litigation support company, I don't think you want to continue down this road. How come Microsoft can have a Wikipage, and not us? What's up with that? How come it's not advertising for them? "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows" How come I don't have a chance to edit my pages, they just get deleted as soon as I save them... How is anyone supposed to work on their content if it's deleted 5 minutes after it's saved! You people need to stop using double standards and start being OPEN SOURCE as you claim.
Decline reason:
Wow. Where do I begin? First of all, feel free to sue, but you will NOT be allowed to edit while making legal threats: see WP:LEGAL. If you make another threat of that nature, I will lock down this talk page so you can't make anymore threats. Second, Wikipedia is not a free webhost for you to post flyers on, it's an encyclopedia, and it has a very firm policy against companies posting articles about themselves or their products. Microsoft Windows was not posted by Microsoft, and is of much higher significance than your article. I suggest you find some other way to promote your company, Wikipedia will not allow this. Mangojuicetalk 21:03, 14 October 2008 (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.
So far, it seems that your only interest in Wikipedia is writing about your own business. Under the conflict of interest guidelines, we all agree not to write about ourselves or our own businesses. Now that you know that you won't be writing about your business at all, do you still want an account on Wikipedia? What other kinds of edits do you think you'll be making? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Mango; I saw where he was defending writing about his own business and complete missed the legal threat. Obviously, now that he's suing Wikimedia, he'll need to continue through the courts, and won't be able to edit until his lawsuit is finished. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Lemansbjw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not writing about my OWN company. I'm writing about a company owned and operated by Michael Del Monte, a Software Developer. Please lift this ban.
Decline reason:
The issues previously raised here have not been addressed. — -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2008 (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.
Lemansbjw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish to be unblocked now. I didn't even see the above warning while I was working on submitting my pages. I changed my content to specifically something I wrote MYSELF, just TODAY, and it was still removed, and now I'm blocked. What do I have to do to get unblocked?
Decline reason:
In your previous edit, you removed the answer to this question, which explained that Wikipedia does not permit advertising. It appears that you are not interested in using Wikipedia for any purpose that is within our rules, so I'll have to decline your request. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (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.
- Regardless of who wrote the article, it wasn't appropriate to be included in an encyclopedia. It reads like an advertisement, and use of Wikipedia for any kind of promotional is expressly prohibited by the policies. In addition, you have posted the same text elsewhere on the web, which makes your intention to promote the product even more obvious. (As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be a compendium of existing knowledge, not a means of making something known.)
See the relevant policies and guidelines:
- What Wikipedia is not - in particular, it is not a soapbox or an advertising board
- Dealing with spam and other promotional material on Wikipedia
- Inclusion (notability) guidelines
- Conflict of interest in writing about yourself, your comapny, its products, etc.
Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now re-blocked, disallowing Lemansbjw from emailing other Wikipedia users or editing this page. This is after a large number of unproductive unblock requests and a similar email. Enough is enough, Lemansbjw has no intention of reforming. Mangojuicetalk 02:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your e-mail to me: What a wonderful rebuttal to my arguments. For that matter, consider my offer to unblock you if you should persuade me that you have read the relevant policies and guidelines forfeit. I agree with Mango: this user has no intention to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)