User talk:Cleanupman

Re: Your name

The name is a little off, as it has a bit of a "offical", "role" sound to it, but the actual work is not only fine, it's great. If you haven't done a lot of edits from this account yet, you might find it mildly beneficial to switch to an account name like: Mabdavom, or some other random but pleasent sounding phrase, just to avoid any issues with the name sounding like a role account. In any case, doing this sort of work under a seperate account is quite alright, and doing it at all is great. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your name

JesseW, the juggling janitor I like that name. I also really like the name Cleanupman, when they see the cleaupman has been there it will be know he is cleaning up spam, I really would like to keep it but if it will cause issues I will change it to wackingspam if that will be ok.--Cleanupman 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say don't bother changing it yet, but if two reasonable people (or 10 idiots) ask you to, then switch to wackingspam, presuming they accept that. As I said, I have no problem with the name personally. Glad you like my nickname - I got it because of my photo (linked from my userpage) - someone suggested it as a nickname during my RfA. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Met-Rx

Not sure how you can state Body-Rx has nothing to do with Met-Rx when they were both founded by Dr. A. Scott Connelly and he talks about and recommends Met-Rx in the book. That is like saying Bill Phillips (author) has nothing to do with EAS - I feel the link is legitimate. - Glen 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIen Thanks for catching this error I was getting to tired and should have quit didn't make the connction had a Brain Fart Sorry been reverted. --Cleanupman 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight training

Please stop removing references from this article. For example, the link http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2003/1103/anderson.htm ("Physical Activity and Weight Management: Building the Case for Exercise")—which you removed with the comment "just too many links spam out of control Please keep from adding too many links to one page ok Overdoing a good thing"—is a perfectly valid reference, and is in no way spam. You were right to remove the one dead link from the page, but the other links that you removed were actually relevant and helpful.

I am very aware of the problem with linkspam on this page, which is why I removed the "External links" section and left the comment "There is no external links section because this always ends up filled with linkspam." The page is on my watchlist (and no doubt on others' too) and is monitored frequently. I remove any links that do not usefully expand upon the specific items of information presented in the article.

Because of the nature of the subject, a conscious effort has been made to include not only academic references, but links to popular articles that would be helpful to the average reader. This may include articles from commercial websites, where this is the best information available. I see no problems with the link to http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/exercise2/rest_pause_method.htm ("Rest Pause Method"), for example.

I support your work, and would like to encourage you to continue it as much as possible, because it is sorely needed on the vast majority of articles. But I do not feel that this article is one of them, sorry. GeorgeStepan e k\^talk 05:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight training

Response I only removed it because the article had numerous references to the same article it was just kinda overdone to me. I can see the importance of the article as it was not totally deleted just reduced in number. I would assume if someone went to the page one time why would you need the same link numerous times if it shows the same content. This is why it was reduced in number. I just did a count of the times www dot physsportsmed dot com/ is on the page 16 times You tell me when enough is enough and it doesn't turn into spam....Thanks..--Cleanupman 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modular home

Thanks for pointing that out. I have verified one source and will continue to work on the others. Sweepthelegnate 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum Nutrition Inc.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Optimum Nutrition Inc.. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please see WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. NawlinWiki 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Every time that you have edited here, you have seen a warning saying, in boldface, "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." Every time that you have created a new page here, you have seen a warning saying, in boldface, "Copyright infringements, attacks, and nonsense will be deleted without warning." We really mean these. Do not violate copyright again.

If you want to write articles, do so properly. If you want to write an article on a company, follow the guidelines in User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you and do it properly, without violating copyright and without copying corporate advertising blurb word-for-word. Uncle G 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

Firstly, there is no point in starting an article about a company unless you can prove that it meets the criteria at WP:CORP, which will normally mean citing the article with information from reliable sources. If you do this you will not have a problem with copyright as the article presented will be an amalgamation of information from a number of different sources. That said, if you do for some other reason need to reproduce copyrighted material you will need to get the copyright holder to licence the content under the GDFL - see the instructions at WP:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others for details on how to do this. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, follow the advice in User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you. If the only available way for you to write about a company is to copy the company's advertising blurb and press releases, then don't write. If that's all the source material that there is on a company, then it won't satisfy our WP:CORP criteria. If a company asks you to post its official blurb into a Wikipedia article, refuse. Wikipedia does not want non-neutral content, and does not want non-free content. The only safe way to write about subjects close to you is to follow the advice that I've linked to. Uncle G 10:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]