User talk:Trungedm

Speedy deletion nomination of Naturalopy

Hello Trungedm,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Naturalopy for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Deunanknute (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a single reference to, or even use of the word "Naturalopy", but if you wish for any references to be removed permanently, you may try contacting the admins. Deunanknute (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Please google or use Bing: naturalopy There is now a reference on both engines that is unflattering. It is the first result on Bing and about fourth on Google.

Reason G3: "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism."

All my work is based on science and research. I don't feel it's my job to contact the admin but yours and Anthony Appleyard's.

Again, I accept your editorial decision. However, I don't want my trademark used by Wikipedia without offering justification based on my work for the G3 reason.

Best regards.

I believe the trademark is used fairly (see MOS:TM and Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)). If your problem is with Google and/or Bing's search results, then I suggest you take it up with them. Deunanknute (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and Anthony Appleyard, without having read it, feel that my work is:

Reason G3: "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism."

How can anyone provide editorial judgment without having read the work?

If you feel the G3 reason is valid, please provide editorial reasons based on the work. I accept all negative comments.

I'm fine with G11, A1, and A7. But G3 is unprofessional and even slanderous.

As an editor, how can anyone judge 21 books in 20 minutes? That's what G3 is suggesting.

I will consult with my attorney to see if there's a recourse.

WP:G3 is used in cases of Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes "This includes" (but is not limited to) "blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism."
Please see WP:LIBEL for contact information on "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia"
Deunanknute (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve consulted with an attorney and here is the gist of what she said:

1. This is a clear case of cybersquatting or misuse of a trademark.

Using a domain name or trademark with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. There is nothing on the page that assists users about the subject, good or bad.

Any future economic loss or loss of goodwill can be attributed to the Anthony Appleyard and Deunanknute and the Wikipedia Foundation. This could be significant since the link is #1 on Bing and #3 on Google.

2. Clear failure of editorial duty by Anthony Appleyard and Deunanknute to review the work in question. It took them 20 minutes to mark the file for deletion. Moreover, no citation, references, or links to support their G3 reason. Just repetitively quoting the G3 criteria.

3. Baiting. Luring users into a page without information about the subject, causing loss of goodwill, time, and confusion to the user.

These are two viable options:

1. Remove all references of “Naturalopy” from Wikipedia so search engines can no longer link to it.

2. Leave the page up, but provide proper critique of the work citing sources, references, and other material, per Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines. If you think the work is garbage, that is perfectly fine. Provide reasons as to why you think so, per Wikipedia’s guidelines.

3. Do nothing. I have always donated to wikipedia in the past when asked, but no more. Furthermore, I will encourage everyone I know through social media and website to never donate to Wikipedia again. When this influence reaches 10,000 or more, I will let your superiors know about it.

Best regards.

Wikipedia customs when entering a message

Please:-
- Put the new message at the end of the user's talk page. If it is new and not a reply, use the "new section" tab at the start of the edit page.
- At the end of your message, add ~~~~ ; Wikipedia will replace it by the date and your username, as a WP:signature. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have referred this matter to WP:ANI as per WP:LEGAL Deunanknute (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]