User talk:Drchuckwilliams

Welcome!
Hello, Drchuckwilliams, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions or place  on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles A. Williams III
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.)  • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles A. Williams III
A tag has been placed on Charles A. Williams III 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 clear 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 verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. 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  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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Steamroller Assault (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that even if the copyright issue were resolved, the promotional tone of a company or personal website is likely to be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, which requires a neutral point of view; please also read WP:Autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The content from my website has been removed; however, the information from my website has been used to rewrite my new page. Also, the information on my site can be verified by several independent organizations and media sources. So, aside from the previous copyright issue (re website), I feel that my new page should be ok.Drchuckwilliams (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My new page
has been completely re-written, so where is it? There is almost no language, on the new page, from my website Drchuckwilliams (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Drchuckwilliams for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my user talk page
Thank you for your message on my user talk page. Prompted by that message I have a few things to mention which may help to clarify matters for you. I hope these comments have been informative. Please feel welcome to ask me again if you want any more help. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You say that my comments are "often nitpicky and short sighted". Perhaps you would be willing to clarify in what way you think this is so?
 * 2) You say "Given that he has been quoted, three times, within the past month, on a single subject, by newspapers in one of America's largest media markets, makes it notable". Here I am not sure to what "it" refers, that is to say "makes what notable"? Do you perhaps mean that it makes the fact of being quoted in newspapers notable? If an event gets significant coverage in newspapers then that will make that event notable, but that is not the same as making the fact of having been reported in newspapers notable.
 * 3) You say that legislative committees select notable people to testify. This is certainly true, but their criteria of notability are quite different from Wikipedia's criteria, which are described in our notability guidelines. However, this is in fact irrelevant, as the fact of your notability is not, as far as I am aware, in question: what is questioned is the notability of particular facts about you.
 * 4) The main issues with the article are (a) it has been filled with large amounts of promotional material and (b) it is largely written by yourself. These two issues are, in fact, closely related. As you will know if you have read the section above entitled "Charles A. Williams III", Wikipedia strongly discourages writing or editing articles about yourself, or any other subject to which you have a close connection. In addition to this Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. Any promotional material inserted into the article will be removed.
 * 5) The user name which you used to post on my talk page is clearly designed to be very similar to my user name. It contravenes Wikipedia's username policy, and you must not use it again.
 * 6) Even if you were to use acceptable user names, having more than one account is normally unacceptable. There are a few circumstances in which having a second account is acceptable, but commonly using two accounts is done with dishonest intention, to give the impression of being two different users. Deceptive use of more than one account is known in Wikipedia as "sockpuppetry", and is against our policy. As you will have seen from the notification above, an editor has accused you of sockpuppetry. If you think you have a legitimate reason for using more than one account you should explain that reason on the page for the investigation of that sockpuppetry accusation. I should emphasise, though, that even if you had a legitimate reason for using two accounts that would not deal with the violation of the user name policy mentioned above.

Are you 144.118.70.111 ?
It would be helpful if you answered this question yourself as it would clear up a lot of the confusion related to your SPI. There's nothing wrong with editing from an IP as long as you make it clear that it's you. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern:

I had two people assisting me with all of this, as this process is largely unfamiliar to me. I did not know that it was a violation to have help with developing a wikipedia page. I believe that one of those persons may have responded inappropriately on my behalf. If that is the case, please accept my apology. Upon reading all of the discussion and feeback, I realize that wikipedia works hard in order to ensure the integerity of the process. To that end, please feel free to block/delete this or any other user account associated with any violations.

Thank you. Drchuckwilliams (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles A. Williams III
A tag has been placed on Charles A. Williams III, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Supertouch (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charles A. Williams III


The article Charles A. Williams III has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "All sources are WP:PRIMARY. No notability or sourcing"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)