User talk:Ekcpr
Eileen Koch & Company?
[edit]Hi Ekcpr, can you confirm you are posting on behalf of Eileen Koch & Company? Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you added an image to Commons that really requires a little further work on providing an assurance about licensing. Because it is a fairly obviously commercial work that is already published elsewhere, you should really email permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org from an official company email address explaining that you uploaded the image commons:Image:S01_074.jpg, that you own the licensing (or represent the owner if it's really Chahal's copyright) and that you (or the owner you represent) license the work under Creative Commons license Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and the GNU Free Document license. Once you've done this, please make a note on the image page that permission has been registered with OTRS (which is what the queue your email goes to is known as).
- Thank you for providing the image. We really love to have good photos of people released under free licenses like this. I'm sorry this adds complexity, when we really do appreciate the release and want to encourage more of the same. Unfortunately we get a lot of people taking images from the web and simply claiming they are the copyright holder so a few extra steps have become necessary. Since it is trivially easy for anyone to create an account and upload an image claiming to be the copyright holder, images that can be found on the web, or are obviously professional, need an added degree of assurance about ownership and licensing. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 13:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Will do so. Thanks for letting me know.
A note on conflict of interest
[edit]Please also be aware that paid editing to promote someone is not appropriate on Wikipedia. You should take a look at our core policies and our conflict of interest guideline. While correcting errors is helpful, most of the edits you recently made to your client's article, Gurbaksh Chahal, do not meet our standards for verifiability, tone, and neutral point of view. Please limit your editing in most cases to the talk page of the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Secret Millionaire, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fox.com/programming/shows/new/secret_millionaire.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) 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Secret Millionaire
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Secret Millionaire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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. TN‑X-Man 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of GWallet
[edit]
A tag has been placed on GWallet, 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. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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. peterl (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
April 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Gurbaksh Chahal with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Gurbaksh Chahal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Gurbaksh Chahal, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You've been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly removing sourced content despite multiple warnings.©Geni (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RadiumOne 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/RadiumOne 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. LukeSurl t c 12:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)