User talk:FinanceQ

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Screen preview.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Screen preview.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Screen preview.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Screen preview.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. ww2censor (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:QFinance image001.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:QFinance image001.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 05:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Qfinance_logo_200.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Qfinance_logo_200.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Screen_preview.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Screen_preview.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article QFINANCE, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --ImGz (t/c) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Gupta

Please be careful when adding external links to articles like you did to Raj Gupta. The links you added were about a different Raj Gupta than the article subject. Please refrain from adding the links back. Also please take a look at wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines, which I've linked above, and the Username guidelines. Thanks, --ImGz (t/c) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link spamming

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Them From Space 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours from editing for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am recommending that this account be terminated and this website http://www.qfinance.com/ be added to block list and removed from Wikipedia. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Only warning since you were blocked for this before; next block will be longer. [1] Them From Space 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digging out of this hole

Hi FinanceQ. I've been asked to give you a hand playing by the Wikipedia rules so that we can evaluate whether what you've been trying to work on has even a possibility for inclusion on Wikipedia. So here's a quick rundown of where things have gone off the rails, and what you can do:

First, you should read our conflict-of-interest policy. This is one part of why you've gotten yourself in trouble here - given your username, you're obviously connected to the product QFinance, and you have been indiscriminately adding links and information about that product and that product only. It looks like you came here to advertise and play up QFinance to be the best thing since sliced bread, no matter what anyone says.

Second, because of your conflict of interest, you've also violated our spam/advertising guidelines. You added links to your product everywhere you could think of, without checking whether they fit our rules for external links. You created and worked on an article for QFINANCE without checking whether it fit our rules for notability. To be eligible for coverage in wikipedia, the subject of an article must be notable. Our definition of notable means that the subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Right now, the article for QFINANCE doesn't meet those guidelines. Though you have included citations within the article, which is a great start, the citations you've included are pretty much uniformly either press releases (no good, because they're not third-party sources and are presumably biased in favor of the product), mentions that QFinance exists (also no good, because merely existing isn't enough to qualify something for Wikipedia), and blogs (also no good, because they are not what we refer to as reliable sources, with editorial control over their quality).

So a combination of these things is how you came to be blocked and your article in danger of deletion. Right now QFINANCE has been proposed for deletion based on the apparently lack of notability of the product, which means that unless someone contests the proposal, it will be deleted on the 29th of June. "The easy solution," you're probably thinking, "is to just then contest the deletion! Of course!"

Except no. For two reasons - well, three, actually. First, because the reason for the proposed deletion is sound. As the article stands, it does not provide any evidence that QFinance is notable, and if someone were to contest the proposed deletion, the article would just go to a slightly longer process called Articles For Deletion, be discussed, found lacking, and deleted anyway. Second, because you have such a clear and obvious conflict-of-interest, anything you change in that article - especially anything like contesting a deletion notice - will be scrutinized fairly unsympathetically. In this case, contesting the proposed deletion would just make you look even more like someone who cares more about their product than about following Wikipedia's rules, which can only hurt your reputation and the article's chances.

Third, you've been blocked. Which means even if you wanted to do something on the article, it's now been made technically impossible for you to do so. The only place you can post anything right now is here, on your talk page.

So what's an editor to do? Here's how you can start putting things back on an even keel. You need to, in the next few days, try to find reliable sources that discuss QFinance in a substantive manner. Find independent sources that talk about why QFinance is important. Sources that talk about why it is a topic of interest to people. Sources that talk about how QFinance has influenced the world or its industry.

When you find these sources, post them here to your talk page. I will be monitoring this page, and I'll evaluate any sources you find. If they follow our guidelines and provide the needed evidence for QFinance's notability, then either I can fix up QFINANCE or I can help you put up an unblock request, asking that one of our administrators remove your block so that you can edit the page.

If you are unblocked, it will be on the assumption that you have read and understood, and will follow, the rules. So no more adding links to QFinance to every article you can think of, no more writing about it as if you're writing a press release, etc. You'll be promising that you will edit the article neutrally and according to our rules, and if you don't follow through with that promise you will end up getting blocked again.

So, what do you say? Want to try digging out of this hole? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2: This user was only here to push eyeballs to his website. More eyes means more counter clicks-ad dollars. He edits were totally self-serving. If he can't add links to his website, then he won't visit Wikipedia. Those are my thoughts on the matter. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that that will be how things play out, Fortuna. However, it's also possible that this person thought their project was important, wanted to put it on Wikipedia, didn't read the rules, and proceeded to make an entire, good-intentions muck of the thing. There's nothing lost by offering some guidance to this user. If they're willing to work within the rules, I'm willing to help show them what those rules are and help them follow them. If this turns out to be a "let me spam or I'll take my ball and go home" situation, well, an unblock will not be forthcoming, and I think I've made that clear to them. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from FinanceQ

Firstly, my sincerest apologies for any offence caused due to our unwitting misuse of the Wikipedia system. Secondly, thank you to keɪɑtɪk flʌfi for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I am an extremely inexperienced Wikipedia user, to the extent that I only realised I had a 'Talk' page in the last couple of days. It's true that I didn't think it was an issue to edit pages of those who have written articles for QFINANCE. In fact, I saw it as expanding the resources on their pages and naturally wanted to provide a link to the original source. Over the next few days I will be finding relevant third party references to QFINANCE which I will post on here in order to appeal against the block. I hope this is satisfactory to all editors. Apologies again. User:FinanceQ

I have collated this list of links.

http://timkevan.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-recommendation-q-finance.html (which was reproduced at http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-:reviews/1849300003/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_img?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1)

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1232918post24577906

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=368421&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=4722

http://politicalriskreview.blogspot.com/2010/06/financial-timesharris-poll-45-pct-of.html

http://www.newsbyme.info/top-stories/george-osbornes-budget-cuts-will-hit-britains-poorest-families-six-times-the-guardian/

Please review them and let me know what you think - I hope they are satisfactory. I do think some of the links already on the page :are credible as well (e.g. http://www.bigskybusiness.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=877:survey-of-top-economic-:thinkers&catid=4:usbusiness&Itemid=5).

I look forward to hearing your response and any advice you may have to offer. User:FinanceQ

Reply from Chaoticfluffy

Unfortunately, none of your new links provide information that is both from a reliable source and substantive. Most of them fail either the reliability requirement or the significant coverage requirement. To break them down:

The first link is to a personal blog and just outlines some of the facts about QFinance (number of pages, etc). Blogs, especially personal ones, aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, and in this case even if the post was not on a blog, it doesn't offer any discussion of QFinance as it pertains to the world - so it lacks both reliability and significant coverage.
The second link falls prey to much the same issue. It is a thread on a discussion forum, which is like a bunch of people all writing their own non-reliable-source opinions on one page.
The third link is definitely more promising, because it is an article from an actual news source, but out of the entire article, QFinance is discussed for about three short paragraphs, and most of that is just listing facts about QFinance. So it's reliable, but doesn't offer significant coverage.
The fifth link is an activist website (which is iffy territory already with regard to reliability) which displays a quote from QFinance, but does not discuss the product or anything.
Similarly, the sixth link is a blog which just mentions a quote from QFinance, but again does not discuss it.
The last link is a news website (promising), but it doesn't even quote QFinance, let alone discuss it - it just lists a link to it. So this definitely also fails the "significant coverage" test.

The Big Sky Business Journal link that's already in the article does appear to be a reliable source, but again, as a source for QFinance, it falls into the trap of mostly just reciting some statistics about QFinance. In conjunction with some other sources that established QFinance's notability, we could use the Big Sky Journal mention, but just that alone isn't enough to hang an article on.

If you feel like you just misunderstood what was a reliable source and want to go hunt down some better sources, I'd be happy to do another round of this source-checking, but if these links were all you could turn up that discussed QFinance, unfortunately, it looks like QFinance isn't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Of course, even if that is the case, it doesn't mean that it never will be notable enough - perhaps in six months, or a year, or a decade, all the news organizations will be buzzing about how important QFinance is - but it does mean that for now, it doesn't fit into the encyclopedia's guidelines. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful advice. Is there any chance of getting an extension on the period before the QFINANCE page is deleted? I'm in the process of looking for credible links and would appreciate a few more days, especially now you have offered us a more detailed instruction. User:FinanceQ

Since the article currently doesn't meet our requirements and the deadline is just about upon us, it does need to be removed from what we call "Article space" (being listed as an article and searchable as an article). But we can ask to have the article "userfied," where an administrator will move it out of article space and into your talk space, retaining the editing history, etc. That way, you can work on it without it being deleted out from under you, and when it's up to standard, we can reverse the request and ask an admin to move it back to article space. Let me poke around a bit and find out where to ask for that... keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. The page is now in your user space, at User:FinanceQ/QFINANCE. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as a side note - non-free images are not allowed in userspace, so I temporarily removed the logo from the userified article. If/when it moves back to article space, we can replace the image then, as the rules are different for article space. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. Hopefully the QFINANCE Wikipedia page will be up and running again before too long. User:FinanceQ 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Qfinance logo 200.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Qfinance logo 200.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from QFINANCE to Editors

I've been doing some research in order to find credible links to post so that I can get the QFINANCE Wikipedia page back up and running. Where should I post my findings in order to propose that the QFINANCE page be reinstated? FinanceQ (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]