User talk:AEthur
Have I created a user page that conforms to Wikipedia standards?
August 2009[edit]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Stephen 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit]
John Butler, William Hornbeak, Jamine Lake, Andre McDaniels, Kristen Land and Ronnie Presley Charged in Largest Domestic Human Sex Trafficking Case[edit]
www.BackgroundNow.com is a niche publisher. The site reports significant criminal and civil court cases, about 150,000 such cases are on the site now. The company has also published 25 books within that same niche for sale at Amazon.com.
August 25th our staff submitted links to Wikipedia to a landmark case in the important subject of human trafficking, "John Butler, William Hornbeak, Jamine Lake, Andre McDaniels, Kristen Land and Ronnie Presley Charged in Largest Domestic Human Sex Trafficking Case" http://www.backgroundnow.com/john-butler-william-hornbeak-jamine-lake-andre-mcdaniels-kristen-land-and-ronnie-presley-charged-in-largest-domestic-human-sex-trafficking-case/. When submitted, the story was barely hours old and it includes the actual case indictment for free download. That's something you won't find at the WSJ or NYT, jet links to our story and the indictment were removed from Wikipedia.
Perhaps because our company performs background checks for corporations you may feel that a conflict exists. But our publishing company is no different than others. Our pages includes ads and like other publishers we provide custom research services, ours in the very specific niche or civil and criminal cases. 99.9% of the content of our site is reporting of cases such as this one, not background checks. Our work is not conflicted, it is complementary. Our knowledge of government records enables exceptional access to court documents for the readers we serve.
BackgroundNow.com provides background checks only for domestic corporations and our case reporting is not a source of business leads. They are two separate businesses. Background check customers find us when they're searching background checks. Likewise, readers find stories when they're looking for them.
"... Largest Domestic Human Sex Trafficking Case" is one of the most important stories of the year. BackgroundNow.com published the both the story and its indictment within hours of the indictment's unsealing and reported it to Wikipedia as a public service. No other news service published it faster and none included the indictment for free download.
We have submitted a very few cases to Wikipedia and only important news not yet reported by other publishers. To be clear, www.BackgroundNow.com is a publisher with readers from around the globe. That said, does this story not deserve telling to Wikipedia readers?
Many thanks.
Lee CEO Lee Hill : Informed Networks Corporation : www.BackgroundNow.com : Direct (281) 506-2132 : Office (713) 784-3232 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AEthur (talk • contribs) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Www.BackgroundNow.com, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=108104. 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. See our copyright policy for further details.
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) 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
The article Www.BackgroundNow.com has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.
Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Also, see WP:SPAM. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
September 2009[edit]
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Stephen 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
October 2, 2009[edit]
Step why are you issuing a warning at all? BackgroundNow.com does not publish spam. It publishes ONLY verified court case information sourced from the FBI, DOJ, DEA, United Nations, Interpol and so on. BackgroundNow.com staff have NEVER submitted a link that included BackgroundNow.com in the title or article content. The articles are about domestic and international criminal and civil court cases. It has published over 100,000 court cases at BackgroundNow.com and two-dozen books covering federal court cases, available at Amazon.com. Every external link posted to Wikipedia is a neutral reporting of a current court case news, which content has been verified by a court, the DOJ, SEC, CFTC or other government source. Why should BackgroundNow.com's reporting be treated any differently than CNN or the BBC? AEthur 06:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)