User talk:PewterReport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Notice 1
The article PewterReport has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which 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. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ― El Cid ∴∵ 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notice 2
The article Pewter Report has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which 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. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ― El Cid ∴∵ 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Third Notice
I left a response in my own talk page, which you posted to, but I'll reiterate here in case you did not see it there. The deletion of the previous Pewter Report articles, and the current nomination for Pewter Report (magazine), is due primarily due to Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest. Since your username was the same as the articles in question, I can only assume you are writing these articles about a project you are involved in an an effort to promote it.
You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but offical policy prohibits writing about subjects that you are directly involved in. ― El Cid ∴∵ 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spamming of http://www.pewterreport.com
- Spam sock accounts
PewterReport (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
HandgBos (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Hu12 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
i have posted the content of the article I am proposing to include on the talk page.
I have rewritten it, and it is of a factual and neutral nature. my fault lays in choosing a user name which makes it appear i AM pewter report, which i am not. I note that other publications have Wikipedia pages, so am not sure why this is being cited.— PewterReport (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should 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 name 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!--Hu12 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not know that.
That said, it appears both my user name and the article I posted on the talk page for the article have been deleted. Am I correct in this observation? PewterReport 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)PewterReport
Despite my following the suggestion in the admonition above which I received from Hu12 regarding rewriting the page and posting that content on the article's Talk page, the article has been deleted and will be prevented from future insertion. I'm unsure as to why other publications have entries which stand, while this entry was summarily deleted without discussion, even though I have attempted to abide by, and utilize the proper channels for insertion and discussion. There are currently articles about commercial publications such as Domino (magazine) or Car and Driver magazine. It is therefore unclear why this entry has been targeted and deleted without discussion or opportunity for further revision and aesthetic improvement. Along with factual and verifiable information, there is a history to the publication which was posted that gives it time and place, and associations with other commercial endeavors which also have articles posted such as the radio station WDAE AM or Walgreens. -- PewterReport 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)PewterReport
- Perhaps you overlooked the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pewter Report (magazine). This was a fair attempt to engage the community with dialog to reach a consensus re this article. Unfortunatly it failed to meet inclusion guidelines. Policies are clear on Advertising and conflicts of interest. The fact that we haven't gotten around to other articles, yet, does not mean there is some obligation to pewterreport.--Hu12 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I did read the very short and (immediately closed) discussion posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pewter Report (magazine), and the impression I leave with is that my user name and newbie status is more of the problem than anything else, and that the deletion determination has at least a degree of caprice and bias. For the statement to be made that a rewite would render the entry a two line article, I believe indicates that the individual making that judgement looked only at my user name, and not at the substance of the post as I had revised and posted in talk. In the very least the History was nothing but neutral and verifyable fact. I must say, I am a bit dissapointed at what appears to be largely unconsidered deletion based more on my poor choice of user names and the fact that I am a new user, rather than any truely substantive comment. --PewterReport 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)PewterReport
