User talk:Golfieke

ServersCheck
If you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), this must be verified by having the copyright holder do one of the following:
 * Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:ServersCheck where we can find that note; or
 * Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL.

The text also must be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Serverscheck screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Serverscheck screenshot.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ➨  ЯEDVERS  10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Both images are marked with a tag as well as the text itself - see GDFL note on reference url Golfieke 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Serverscheck sensor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Serverscheck sensor.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ➨  ЯEDVERS  10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Redvers please read the copyright notice posted by Centrx, another editor. Screenshots and pictures are made available under GFDL.  He did post a note about it to the page.   I don't understand what is going on.   The tags are there but for some reason: editor one is happy with GFDL and you are not... Who is right? Golfieke 14:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's right? Me, I'm afraid. These images were tagged as both GDFL and copyright-fair-use. They can't be both. You must choose one. Because there is no evidence of release under the GDFL by the copyright owner (one can be provided on Image talk:Serverscheck sensor.jpg for instance) then it is safe to assume they are copyright images.


 * However, in this case the problem is not the copyright (per se). If you look at the above standard messages, you'll see that they are asking for a source to be provided. Where do the images come from? A website (give the URL)? A person at the company (give the name)? Yourself (say so)? Source and copyright details are both required. Please re-read the above messages and supply the requested information. Thanks! ➨  ЯEDVERS  16:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you checked the URL where there is the explicit GFDL authorization from ServersCheck as specified by Centrx? It clearly stipulates the sensor picture: http://www.serverscheck.com/network-monitorig-tool.asp Golfieke 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ServersCheck Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:ServersCheck Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ServersCheck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DCIM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ServersCheck


A tag has been placed on ServersCheck, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It 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 encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of ServersCheck for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ServersCheck 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 Articles for deletion/ServersCheck 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ServersCheck Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:ServersCheck Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:ServersCheck Logo.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Serverscheck


A tag has been placed on Serverscheck, 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 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 deleted 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. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello Golfieke. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Golfieke. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie (talk)

There is no payment involved. Fond of it? Most certainly yes. Paid for it? no. I hope this clarifies it.

Speedy deletion nomination of Serverscheck


A tag has been placed on Serverscheck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Golfieke. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉  23:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Athaenara I appreciate your reply. I am a friend of the company and a user. I did not know that construed a problem since no financial direct or indirect is involded.  Nevertheless I think it deserves an article due to its notoriety with independent reviews from reputable sources (a requirement MrOllie outlined in a dispute around another article). MrOllie removed all source links to contributions on other articles I made. I think that we can agree that MrOllie found the contributions relevant enough to be kept.  But if they are relevant enough to be kept, then why label them as spam like he did? An additional issue arises when you remove the reference links when it relates to copyrighted material and is the result of findings of the company.  Keeping content without source reference would mean that it is public domain. MrOllie instructed me to stop posting to Wikipedia, is that correct? Golfieke (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you meant notoriety, what matters here is Notability, which you should read if you haven't yet. If you persist in pushing a company without regard for our policies and guidelines, you'll end up blocked from editing.  – Athaenara  ✉  00:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Athaenara, my apologies. Indeed I meant notability which I thought was provided by the verifiable independent references.  I have read Notability before rewriting it.  As you can see the post earlier today was entirely rewritten from the 2016 post and not similar. My impression was that it was first marked for deletion because of paid contribution and then because of past deletion and same content again. Don't worry, I won't be posting the company again. I am a friend and I don't want to ruin friendship over my actions :-)  May I politely and kindly ask you what it would take for that company to be considered for Wikipedia so that I can tell them?  Industry awards, independent reviews from reputable sources do not count so not sure what does.  I appreciate your expertise and input.  Always eager to learn and do better :-) Golfieke (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies). – Athaenara  ✉  00:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Athaenara, I agree. However I am convinced that the content submitted complies with that: significant, multiple, independent, reliable and secondary sources were provided.  International media in multiple continents was provided as reference which as per Notability (organizations and companies) demonstrates a strong indication of notability.  Independent reviews by leading publications in 2016 and new ones in 2019 post demonstrate the independence of the author and its publication and the significance. In the 2016 there was even reference to a legal proceeding that got global coverage including CNN. There is even a For Dummies book talking about it as considered by Notability (organizations and companies)as substantial coverage. Publications from CERN (the inventors of the internet :-) ),  a book by the European Council etc...  So there are many more references and sources that are available that I can add to it if deemed useful.  This is why I am so confused as to the rationale behind the refusal... Golfieke (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Serverscheck screenshot.jpg


The file File:Serverscheck screenshot.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Uploaded for ServersCheck. No other use."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 04:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Serverscheck sensor.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Serverscheck sensor.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)