User talk:Psch1986

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

All About Careers Ltd spamming

allaboutlaw.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

Notability of Allaboutlaw.co.uk

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Allaboutlaw.co.uk, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Allaboutlaw.co.uk seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Allaboutlaw.co.uk, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allaboutlaw.co.uk

A tag has been placed on Allaboutlaw.co.uk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Allaboutlaw.co.uk and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. k84 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Allaboutlaw.co.uk. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding inappropriate external links to articles

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since 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. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content is relevant though surely? I'm putting up useful content— Preceding unsigned comment added by Psch1986 (talk • contribs)

Being tangetally related is not enough justification to repeatedly add links to a wide spectrum of articles. Wikipedia has strict rules regarding the addition of external links to articles (see WP:EL) and it is generally not enough to just be "kinda sorta about the same think". Also, repeatedly doing nothing but adding links to the same website is seen as disruptive, as the behavior gives the appearence of advertising said site. See WP:LINKSPAM for more on this. Also, it is clear from your history that you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) regarding this website, and as such, should probably stop adding links to it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not vetted the site, but if the site meets the requirements of WP:RS, our reliable source guideline, it MAY be useful as a reference to expanding these articles. However, given that you seem to have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) in seeing this site used, perhaps a better course of action would be to bring up proposed changes to the article at the article's talk page, and ask for other people's opinion. If they think that the site is generally reliable, and that the information is relevent to the article, they will let you know! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel University

The edits you made to this article are copied directly from the link you also added. They are therefore a copyright violation. They are also merely advertising and not encyclopedic material. I have reverted them. Please read out policies and guidelines. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allaboutlaw.co.uk

It is rather transparent that you may have some connection with Allaboutlaw.co.uk. While it seems to be a useful website, it is inappropriate to continually add links to it. Much better would be to use its page on a law school as a reference. Fred Talk 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let someone else who has no connection with it create an article about it, using published material from reliable sources. Fred Talk 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for trying to hide identity, and continuing disruption

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.