User talk:Paulnigelashton
Image copyright problem with Image:CH.gif
[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:CH.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Re.press, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.re-press.org/content/view/17/33. 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 09:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I received your message. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a place for people to post articles about their own businesses. If your business satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards and other policies, somebody will eventually write an article about it. Please also review WP:COI in this regard. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks 07:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you consider your business to be more deserving of an article than other publishers. That's exactly my point. You are among the least neutral persons on the planet in that regard, and therefore among the last ones who should be writing an article about it. -- But|seriously|folks 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a question of being subjectively worthy, or even objectively worthy. We have policies here (among them WP:N, WP:V and WP:COI), and your posting of this article violates them. There are plenty of places on the Internet for you to promote your business. This is not one of them. -- But|seriously|folks 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The information at this link might give you a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies in this regard. -- But|seriously|folks 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a question of being subjectively worthy, or even objectively worthy. We have policies here (among them WP:N, WP:V and WP:COI), and your posting of this article violates them. There are plenty of places on the Internet for you to promote your business. This is not one of them. -- But|seriously|folks 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course you consider your business to be more deserving of an article than other publishers. That's exactly my point. You are among the least neutral persons on the planet in that regard, and therefore among the last ones who should be writing an article about it. -- But|seriously|folks 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)