User talk:Olayak

Gottbetter not notable[edit]

Law firms in general are not notable. Gottbetter & Partners is no different, and this article appears to be advertising. What's more, much of the content you are using is coming right out of the firm's website, which is a copyright violation. I am proposing the page be deleted. Please don't advertise, spam, or create corporate vanity pages on wikipedia. That is not its purpose. --User:Kchase02 (T, C, e) 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks, but it was a first draft, and not a final draft. I am writing it for the company, and so it is NOT copywrite infringement.~~

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Mak (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are writing it for the company, the company still needs to grant permission through the proper channels described here. Even with permission, citing is still a good idea so that an editor who isn't aware of the company's permission does not delete the content. Of course, citation is essentially required for content that doesn't come from the company, such as this. --User:Kchase02 (T, C, e) 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam S. Gottbetter is the Mann Report's Hedge Fund manager of the year, so I believe that his firm is of interest to the masses and not just a "corporate vanity page". Besides, does that make all articles about actors "vanity pages"? ~~k

By the way, does this mean that you will remove all the pages put up by law firms? this is not the only one. Please look under the catagory "list of law firms - united states" and you will see that there are several law firms listed with Wikipedia. I dont understand why this one should be removed and not all the law firm articles. Another note- G&P has created a service called the "GPO" which is unique to the company. I believe that this also distingushes the company from other firms. ~k

Where does it say that you should remove deletion notices? There are a couple processes for deletion, I know, it's confusing, and actually you are not supposed to remove AFD notices. Check out Notability guidelines for information which will show that this particular law firm is notable. Some things which will help are news articles from reputable newspapers. You can argue for keeping the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gottbetter & Partners. You will be most successful if you find the appropriate policies. Finally, sign by putting four consecutive tildes (~~~~)Mak (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add in the citations. Olayak 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)k[reply]

If you really think that GOP is notable enough to merit an article, I'd suggest writing an article about that. It's less likely to earn the scorn of wikipedia editors who are fed up with blatant advertising (which G&P's page initially appeared to be). If you don't think other law firms deserve to be on wikipedia, then you should nominate them for deletion.. G&P's AfD page is not a forum to complain about the inconsistent enforcement of the deletion policy. --User:Kchase02 (T, C, e) 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?[edit]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

72.14.195.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

{GWAblock}

Blocking administrator: Netsnipe (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Please see your block message which explains why you were blocked and how to disable google web accelerator so you can resume editing. — Yamla 19:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Dont have google web accelerator any more! please unblock

Standard error of measurement[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Standard error of measurement, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060727094621AALaqMY. 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) 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Standard error of measurement[edit]

A tag has been placed on Standard error of measurement 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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tompkins First Run[edit]

The article Tompkins First Run has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable dog park

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TKK ^{bark !} 23:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tikuko, Just wondering why you wp:PRODed this article even though the creator seems to be blocked and cannot paticipate in discussion here (good thing user:DGG did not allow the deletion to proceed). XOttawahitech (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware the creator of the article was blocked. Doesn't matter, anyone can pull a PROD, not just the article creator; I've AfD'd it now. --TKK ^{bark !} 04:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tompkins First Run for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tompkins First Run 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/Tompkins First Run 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. TKK ^{bark !} 12:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Katherine Compitus[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 Katherine Compitus, 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. Edwardx (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Katherine Compitus[edit]

Hello, Olayak. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Katherine Compitus".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. Katherine Compitus (May 27)[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 TheAafi was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Also please format the sources correctly. See WP:REFB

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:Dr. Katherine Compitus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dr. Katherine Compitus, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Dr. Katherine Compitus[edit]

Hello, Olayak. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dr. Katherine Compitus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Dr. Katherine Compitus[edit]

Hello, Olayak. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dr. Katherine Compitus".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]