User talk:Pixelsmart

Speedy deletion of Hyperresolution[edit]

A tag has been placed on Hyperresolution, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO, This is valid current research and not spam. It is not commercial. It is placed to advance the body of knowledge in the field of HCI and to stimulate other researchers to think about the problems in navigating hyperresolution images. This is not advertising nor is it self promotion. Dan DeConinck --Pixelsmart (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

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. MCB (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am not a spammer. I am a self employeed engineer. This has been my first post and boy have I ever been slammed hard. Regarding the new entry I created - Hyperresolution. I wanted a public record of my work. I see that, that is just too suspicious around here. Please delete it as I will not defend it further. If I am able to have it published in a scientific journal, then I will resubmit it to wikipedia. By for now.}}

A bit of newbie biting here? "Spamming" isn't the issue, anyway; the gentleman needs a polite lesson in our original research policies, not a kick in the crotch. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the blocking admin and am strongly considering an unblock for the same reason. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jpgordon's and Daniel Case's observations. — Athaenara ✉ 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelsmart, please note that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for recording your work; it is an encyclopedia in which content must be sourced. Self-created neologisms more than likely do not fulfill those criteria. My two cents: I would endorse an unblock of your account if you can show that you understand the "why" of the deletion of your article. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Blocking admin may have jumped to conclusions, three other admins concur with the unblock

Request handled by: Stifle (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from user Pixelsmart,

I understand the NOR guidline. Yes it is the job of peer reviewed journals to judge original research fit for publication, and not wikipedia's job. Indeed wikipedia would be awash in bunk without this guideline. --Pixelsmart (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses and explanation here, however, as the admin who originally blocked your account, I would like to request that you change your username to something that is other than the name of your company. When you use a company name as a username there is always the implication that you are engaging in promotional activity, which creates the appearance of impropriety. That is especially the case if you write about your own work. Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions there. Thanks, MCB (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]