User talk:Middlesexlodge

Speedy deletion of Middlesex Lodge

A tag has been placed on Middlesex Lodge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Altairisfar _talk 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was re-created by coi spa Middlesexlodge, complete with the WP:CSD#G12 tag the first version had. It was deleted as per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising. — Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Conflict of interest guideline

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Middlesex lodge, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I see this as blatant advertising or even a biased report of middlesex lodge. I truly believe that this lodge is an important part of American history beginning with the fact that it was one of the first chartered lodges in America with it Charter signed by then Massachusetts Grand Master Paul Revere.Middlesexlodge (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Adam Reed user middlesexlodge[reply]

RE

I responded on my talk page to your comments. Altairisfar _talk 04:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I have re-replied on yours.Middlesexlodge (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I specifically deleted the article because you had blanked it out - which we generally accept as an intention to withdraw the submission. Beyond that, I would also reiterate the note above that writing articles on subjects with which you are affiliated is strongly discouraged as being incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia. I encourage you to instead try editing other articles on subjects that interest you in order to get a feel for how things work.--Kubigula (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page. Cheers. Altairisfar _talk 05:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here.

Cirt (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Middlesexlodge (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is not spam, this is sharing a history

Decline reason:

You were writing an article that was about a group you represent, that was otherwise not notable. Sounds like spam to me. — Fritzpoll (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.