This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please protect this page/block the user who has recreated it 4 times now. Thanks, CTJF83 Talk 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kate,
You have recently removed the list of umbrella companies under "Umbrella company" on the grouds that its a spam attractor and there are not even remotely notable companies on the list.
I feel both the reasons are unfair.
Regarding the first reason,
In fact this list was the only open, non biased reference list of umbrella companies for the contractors in UK. All others are biased commercial information available on net with the site owners have absolute control over information and that contractors can not trust. As a vindication to its usefulness, many contractors started using it, the Google page ranking very quickly improved from page 4 to page 1 , within few weeks.
Do you not think, open, unbiased information rendering is one of the objectives of wiki project ?
Given its value and alignment with wiki project goals, the reason potentail spam attractor is not good enough.
Regarding notable companies:
The list has many, like Parasol, Drole, Orange Genie, Nasa, Trafalgar contractor Soltions. Which are in UK market for quite few years and are well reputed. but the list did not just limit to notable companies as its intended to be reference list.
You may wish to take few opinions before removing the list. If some one has complained about the list, it should be the companies on first page of Google. Which is quite understandable. But please do not kill the open non biased information.
Regards, Chanveda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.254.170 ( talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You should have followed procedure and not marked ASP.NET MVC: Problem - Design - Solution as a speedy delete. There was nothing advertising related about that, it was the same text provided on many reputable sites, including Wrox.com (the publisher), Amazon.com (provided via the publisher), Barns and Nobel (provide via the publisher). This was at best a gross misstep on your part to not mark it as a general delete so that it could be debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nberardi ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
hey you have deleted my site encyclopedia -Netpharmaworld(Website).there is nothing wrong with that, it was all informative, please do restore my Page.
Mark Anderson
Wikipedia user —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.170.2.110 (
talk)
04:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
i have re established Netpharmaworld and deleted text that look promotional. Please do con sider now.
User:00markanderson —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).
Hi Kateshortforbob,
This mail written by manupatra IP 122.160.177.194.
Please {unlock | manupatra account data added in manupatra its copywriting data of manupatra legal law}
Data added in manupatra its copyrighted data of manupatra legal law
Regards
Manupatra
Thanks for your note. Sorted. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | ||
For your dedication and persistence in noting, pursuing and cleaning up a massive copyright problem here. Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
Kate,
I work at Reynolds Plantation in Greensboro, GA and have been trying to create a Wikipedia page for our community for a couple of days, but it keeps getting marked as spam. The community has been around for 20 years and and the land has been owned by our developers for hundreds of years, so there is some history here, as with the Greenbrier in West Virginia. The most recent page that was added is pulled from a book that our staff wrote on the history of Reynolds Plantation and the golf courses here. Can you help me understand why this was pulled down and how I can get an effective page up and running that does not get pulled down?
Thank you, JasonMurray ( talk) 14:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you recently went through finding a multiple point infringer and trying to muster assistance with it, you may be in excellent position to give feedback on the new proposed process page at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. I plan to place it at village pump soon (like maybe tomorrow), but would like a fresh set of eyes that might help find glaring issues before doing so. Thanks for any input you may be able to offer. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
We talked briefly recently on a minor issue of page protection [2], and now I could use your opinion on another matter.
An editor maintains that changes to pages involving their WikiProject must be cleared by them. Changes the editor disagrees with are reverted with the reason being given as vandalism. The editor was asked to mediate [3]. They refused, writing: "Because mediation isn't necessary. I don't see how mediation will solve anything." [4]
If anything, the editor is taking a more extreme position -- expanding the types of edits they regard as vandalism.
WikiProject WP:TVS is involved in thousands of articles, so this isn't a small matter. Other editors maintain the WP:TVS edits are contrary, for example, to WP:COATRACK, WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:DIRECTORY. The response is basically that WP:TVS don't recognize those authorities, unless they agree with them.
What should I do next? Is it time to start an arbitration? Piano non troppo ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)