Talk:Cogent Fibre

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because...

I have removed the copyrighted content. The alleged violation was a minor one, which was committed by mistake. --Axxn (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it still remains. The copyright and close paraphrasing is quite extensive. Review this link to just one page: [1]. The copyright violation and close paraphrasing can easily be seen. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, give me some 24 hours time. I'll remove them. Axxn (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone check it now... there are some matching Reference Titles, but they were created by Reflinks, not me. Axxn (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

Cogent Fibre (company) appears to have been created by a SPA in order to circumvent the editing process underway here. I've placed a speedy deletion tag accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the content fork. As Shawn says, any issues should be worked out here and I've left a note on User talk:Sloated to that effect. —SMALL JIM 16:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and Utility

I agree with Amalthea and Shawn in Montreal that the user ML9C seems to have violated several guidelines. However, some of the content that was contributed seems legitimate under the general notability guidelines. I propose some of the deleted content be revised, cleaned up for duplication issues, vetted for valid third party references, and be partially redeployed.

To this end I’ve kept out all content regarding “necessary thinning,” the cargo ships it employs, and information regarding the “U.S. Export-Import Bank,” which seem extraneous. I’ve reinstated information regarding news about the physical facility from a local newspaper and information regarding its certification with the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, both of which seem to add utility and are relevant to the article. I’ve also redirected the link to the certification page to something much more precise. This seems like a fair compromise and fits with an eventualist ethic. The notability flag seems moot at this point and has been removed. Cheers! Phrenology (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cogent Fibre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622232220/http://www.21cbtv.com/index.php to http://www.21cbtv.com/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]