User talk:Phreak79

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Cashback website do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dekisugi (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adoption

Hi you have said you are looking for a user to adopt you- I'm happy to do so if you really want it, so feel free to message me back to let me know one way or the other. Either way, enjoy your time here.:) Sticky Parkin 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online loyalty association

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Online loyalty association, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.internetretailing.net/news/online-loyalty-association-launched. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Online loyalty association

A tag has been placed on Online loyalty association 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. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Online loyalty association

A tag has been placed on Online loyalty association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Finngall ^talk 17:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets see here. The article is still here, despite one previous deletion. The reason for that deletion was obvious — it was a copyright violation. Those are always removed very, very quickly because there are serious legal ramifications. You just can't do a copy-and-paste from another website, including one you own (unless you've gone through the steps to make it legal). But the next time it was recreated and nominated for deletion (by a different editor than myself), that nomination was rejected by another administrator. I did put a {{nn}} tag which indicates that I still have my concerns about whether the company meets Wikipedia notability standards, but the article is not in immediate danger of deletion. So come up with more independent, reliable sources that indicate the association's notability and you'll do fine. It is not unusual for a new editor's first article to be speedy-deleted. Mine was, years ago. Just ask the person who marked it and/or the admin who actually deleted it what the problem was, then work to fix it. (Bear in mind that the problem sometimes can't be fixed — for instance, a garage band that hasn't even recorded an album just isn't notable, no matter how well-written the article may be. We get a lot of those.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be a confusing place sometimes, even for us veterans. As for the interview — hmmm, that's a tough one. Is there any place where it might be archived? Or a transcript of the interview? It's a problem we face with lots of sources, especially those from wire services like Associated Press, which often requires its subscriber newspapers to remove AP stories after a certain period of time, like two weeks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in: Yes, there's a lot of rules around here for a "free" encyclopedia, but it's all in the interest of making this the best encyclopedia it can be. Your point about fast deletions and slow responses to questions is well-taken--it's easy to slap a deletion tag (or any other template) on a page, but coming up with a reasoned response to a reasonable question takes more time, and the amount of time each person spends on here can be highly variable. I don't really have much more to add in the way of advice that Realkyhick hasn't already covered. Thank you for your understanding. --Finngall ^talk 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Edge

Please provide refs for the article you created or it will get deleted. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I doubt it would (although I am not 100% sure) since it is a social networking site after all (granted it is business oriented). Surely there are other refs/sources out there re him? I did not want to sound harsh when I said the article will get deleted but you must realize that if the article has no refs on a living person... how can anyone verify what anything said on it is true (since it can be a hoax on the linkedin site for example). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better than nothing, but there might be individuals that would argue that they are not good enough and your best bet would be to find more indicating his notability... are there news clippings, interviews, tv appearances etc that you can ref? In the mean time, feel free to read up on much of the wikipedia guidelines (see the top of your talk page for e.g.) to better help you on making good articles. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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! --SineBot (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Online Loyalty Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Online Loyalty Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Loyalty Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]