User talk:Stingerreport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, The Stinger Report, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of The Stinger Report

A tag has been placed on The Stinger Report requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stinger Report

Please do not add "{hangon}" unless you have a supporting reason. Willisis2 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can now see there was supporting reasons for the hangon - and the site has been updated to meet requirements. Stingerreport (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I think you need to read WP:N. Make sure you see WP:RS also.--Sting au Buzz Me... 12:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again much appreciation in taking the time to supply us pointers in the coverage of the page in question; I have read the sources you pointed me towards and have this issues:

  • Notability – You will notice that the Stinger has been mentioned in a number of the references supplied. You will also notice that the coverage is used by media sources to cover the sector. I would say that the WP:Notable (People) is covered by the Stinger entry “worthy of notice” – we are using a ‘Primary source’ to support the inclusion and as a creative resource the Stinger falls into other aspects of this inclusion.
  • Reliable Sources – I have worked to only use three external links of ‘Self-Published’ sources, the rest are sources that have though the coverage worth of inclusion. I am uncomfortable with the way that Insidecoinop, 1up.com and SPONG.com were dismissed recently by one critic, though I notice that entry has ‘disappeared’.
  • Advice by subject – I have just noticed that in this reference that trade association and accreditation from ‘business and commerce’ can be used. I have not seen one comment in all the criticism to The Stinger Report entry on our association accreditation? Why is this ignored as a reliable reference?

I notice that some of the criticisms of the Stinger page have swapped, as if some who originally claimed that it was ‘puffing’ now say it is not informative. It also has been edited to address the requests, and I have even supplied subscription information to address a unfounded claim of being internet spam! I would be interested in what else I am going to have to supply – especially as I notice that equivalent pages of similar (consumer) services seem to have gone unquestioned? Is this as amusement is too obscure? Stingerreport (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it matches the name of an organization and is being used to promote it.
This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:

  1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

—slakr\ talk / 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "the page has made every effort to adopt changes requested, and had been in agreement with admin on last changes. The account was removed instantly with no chance to appeal"

Decline reason: "If you would like to be unblocked, please request a new name as instructed above. Please note that even if unblocked, you will be expected to not make edits to pages with which you have a conflict of interest. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I'm not sure what changes were requested of what, but your username is a violation of our policy. You are free to either register a new one or request a quick username change as is given in the template above so that you can resume editing. --slakr\ talk / 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)