User talk:Jessdfacts

Welcome

Hello, Jessdfacts! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Cracked acorns (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jessdfacts/The Library Corporation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Jessdfacts/The Library Corporation 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 clear 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 verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. 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 {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. WuhWuzDat 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Integrated library system. 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 may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• tlcdelivers.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.tlcdelivers.com
--- Barek (talk) - 18:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been removed.

Copyvios in user space

Please note that material which violates Wikipedia's copyright policy (which may or may not violate copyright law) cannot even be included in your user space, per Wikipedia policy, not even temporarily while being revised. If you are going to rework copyrighted material, it must be done entirely outside of Wikipedia and only be posted here once all copyright policy violations are removed. In doing so, however, please be aware that mere paraphrasing, change of first to third person, changes in verb tense, and similar revisions of the material will be regarded to be close paraphrasing and will not cure the copyright problem; it really has to be entirely rewritten from the ground up. Let me add a word of friendly advice: Though it may not look like it on first blush, there are strict policies on what subjects and content can and cannot be included in Wikipedia. In very general terms, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have

already been recognized
as important or significant
by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
with a established reputation for fact-checking
which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself.

That's just a plain-English generalization of the actual rules to give you an idea of what's going on here, so don't rely on it but refer to the actual policies instead. (For a great analogy illustrating these concepts, see WP:SCRABBLE.) Without a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy it can be very frustrating to try to write an article that won't be deleted. I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information. Also, if you've not done so already, you need to read the Notability, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Conflict of interest policies from beginning to end. Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wuhwuzdat&diff=399966888&oldid=399960517 WuhWuzDat 18:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Integrated library system. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, why are other ILS vendors allowed to list their products? This was not a promotion; rather, it was an addition to the list of ILS products. I know you want me to assume good faith, but the inconsistencies in your edits make me suspect bias. --Jessdfacts (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Integrated library system, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --- Barek (talk) - 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to violate any policy, just add to the list of ILS products. Why do you allow some vendors to list proprietary products but delete those offered by The Library Corporation? --Jessdfacts (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In each existing case, either the company or the product has an article, which established notability under the guideline outlined at WP:N. --- Barek (talk) - 20:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but if you look closer, more than half of those articles you mention do not exist. Also, I was in the process of writing an article about The Library Corporation, but it was deleted before it was finished and published. How can I link to an article that people are deleting before it is submitted? --Jessdfacts (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links are redlinks, indicating that no article exists; but on each row at least one or the other of either the product or the company is blue-linked with an existing article. From what I can see, neither is blue-linked in your addition at this time.

As to creating the article; I'm unable to view it at the moment, but it appears to have been deleted as a copyright violation, indicating that a significant portion of the text was a cut/paste from some source that owns the copyright on that text. If it was not, you could try requesting undeletion through WP:Deletion review - however, if the text was directly copied, it's unlikely to be restored. In that case, you would need to recreate the content, taking care to not use cut/paste content from another source.

To create a new article, it will need to meet the threashold of notability outlined at WP:N (or, for organizations and companies, the sub-guideline at WP:ORG). This is best achieved by having multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in more than just passing mention (copies of press-releases or other materials originally created by the organization do not count towards this, although such sources can still be valuable for providing references for other information within an article). --- Barek (talk) - 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barek. This has been extremely frustrating and I suspect that people associated with companies in competition with The Library Corporation have had a hand in this. The article I wrote did not contain any cut and paste copy -- I was a newspaper editor for 10 years and am well versed in copyright policies -- and there were numerous references to national publications that have written about TLC and its products. My attempt to have the page restored so I could continue my work was met with a terse response that offered no specific examples of violations. Sigh... --Jessdfacts (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Integrated library system. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jessdfacts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The content that was called into question was deleted and I have been engaged in discussions with the editors responsible in an attempt to understand their decisions. I believe a block is unfair because I am following the rules set forth by Wikipedia in an attempt to resolve this dispute before attempting to submit further articles. Jessdfacts (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See discussion at User_talk:Cirt#Block_of_Jessdfacts. You may still be autoblocked. Please let us know if this is happening.Chaser (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in contact with the blocking administrator. Let me use say a word about casting aspersions about Wuhwuzdat here. First, it is likely true that some ILS competitors did indeed insert links to their articles or external links in the Integrated library system page (see the page history for the many IPs editing that article and little else [1]). But they are not here now. The Wikipedia contributors that were involved in this matter are all generalists. The recent edits that Wuhwuzdat made to that page were the only ones he has made there in the last year [2] You may have been blocked a bit swiftly, but casting aspersion on other editors without any evidence does not help your case.--Chaser (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but Wuhwuzdat declined to cite examples of my mistakes when requested and instead just posted Wikipedia policies that may or may not have been relevant -- it's impossible for me to say without knowing the specific passages called into question. Another editor, Barek, was much more definitive in his criticisms, so even though I may not personally agree with his position, I have no problems with his edits. When Wuhwuzdat posted that I infringed on copyright, that cast a definite aspersion on my character, especially when you consider that I worked as a journalist for 10 years and a newspaper editor for another 10. I take great pride in my fairness and integrity, and I bristle when someone publicly accuses me of violating my own personal code of ethics. If there was an infringement, it was unintentional and would never have survived my final edit of the page. I must reiterate that my page was a work in progress, it had not been published, and I planned on submitting it for editorial review before making it public. Any content on that page was for my personal use in the writing process. However, the page was deleted abruptly before I had a chance to voice my position or save a copy of what I had written, costing me hours of work and depriving me of the opportunity to bring it in full compliance. The Library Corporation is an international company that provides automation and cataloging software and services to thousands of libraries in the United States, Canada, and Singapore. I believe the firm is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. All I am asking for is a fair chance to have my worked reviewed and edited in an unbiased manner. --Jessdfacts (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to email you the final revision of that page. The first paragraph of it is identical to the text in the product showcase section of this page. There are other similarities. The bigger issue is neutrality. As promotionally as that is written, it has little chance of surviving a speedy deletion as promotional material, even disregarding the copyright violation (which I acknowledge was part of the page rather than all of it). If you want, I can strip out the copyvio material and let you continue your work, then review the article when you're finished. How's that sound?--Chaser (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than fair, thank you. I appreciate you sending the original copy. Please let me know when you've made your edits, and I will submit the final version to you when it is finished. Again, thank you. --Jessdfacts (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It is at its former location, User:Jessdfacts/The Library Corporation.--Chaser (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, I replied to your request for feedback. I hope my comments/suggestions are useful, but if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks! Chevy monte carlo 06:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chevy monte carlo! I implemented your suggestion. Jessdfacts (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:TLC Inwood Staff.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:TLC Inwood Staff.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Library Corporation (TLC) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Library Corporation (TLC) 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/The Library Corporation (TLC) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:TLC LOGO.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:TLC LOGO.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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]