User talk:Hercwulf

Speedy deletion nomination of John Mattone[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Mattone, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Besides being an utterly blatantly piece of advertising, this was a blatant copyright violation. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and if you violated copyright again, you will be blocked from editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, could you please elaborate further? In regards to the article being an utterly blatantly piece of advertising, I provided examples of similar people in Wikipedia (to name a few):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren%C3%A9_Brown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Maxwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Sharma

In regards to the article being a blatant copyright violation, I'm authorized by John Mattone to publish a Wiki article. Email John@johnmattone.com if you don't believe me or need confirmation. Could you please provide some guidance? Thank you

Hercwulf (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX. In short, bad and illegal content abounds and its existence, were these pages equivalent, would be no basis to allow other bad and illegal content. As to the copyright, if this text was suitable (it's not), a person or party has to show they are its owner and release the copyright irrevocably to the world into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with the free licenses borne by Wikipedia's content (list here), and not just provide permission for use on Wikipedia. This would have to be done in a verifiable manner, not by your statement, because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. But the content is highly promotional in tone and content ("proud parents of... John Mattone is widely regarded as one of the world’s top leadership coaches. .... Recently, John was honored...") so it would need a great deal of rewriting even if you obtained its release.

This is all aside from the question of whether he is notable enough to merit an article, as we use that word and concept here to indicate that the subject of an article has been substantively written about in published, reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the subject (I don't know whether he is).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hercwulf, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Hercwulf! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Mattone (June 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Mattone and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for copyright violations. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Fuhghettaboutit I would like to speak to your supervisor. This is unacceptable. I'm the owner of the material that you mentioned - I recently created that PDF file. Contact me at sergio@johnmattone.com if you do not believe me. It is evident that you are enforcing copyright violations out of spite without any logic behind it. I repeat, I am the owner of the content. Contact me at the email address from johnmattone.com if you are still in doubt. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You were informed above how to release that material to the public domain or put it under a free copyright license suitable for Wikipedia. No, we're not going to contact you; there are specific steps you need to take (not us) to verify your ownership of it and to verify that you are releasing it. There are no "supervisors" here, by the way; we're all volunteers. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:33, 6 August 2017 (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.

I was about to decline the unblock request for the same reasons, and I'll also note that you violated the Terms of Use by not declaring your connflict of interest as required, and that you, despite Fuhgettaboutit's explicit warnings, recreated blatantly promotional content which would have been deleted even without the copyright issue. What's unacceptable here is not the block. Huon (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nothing. I can clearly see that you are volunteers without supervision. Now, a conflict of interest is mentioned? I am sure that wiki pages are made by random people with no relationship whatsoever to the source. After all, if someone puts the content under the free copyright license suitable for Wikipedia, some conflict of interest must exist! Most importantly, the so-called copyright materials were simply facts available anywhere on the net. I even followed wiki profiles for other executive coaches. I advice you to also check them since you are all being bias. Even the draft page I made was deleted! Why? It was a draft page! By the way, Fuhgettaboutit warnings came after my first wiki page, which I immediately corrected. Then, a draft was made. Oh well, enjoy whatever power boost this gives you. Targeting me when so many others do whatever they want (I provided examples to Fughwhatever). But, who cares. Have a great weekend!