User talk:Industman

Machine slides
Hi Peripitus - I'm a little confused as to why you deleted the Machine slides page. I'm the one who wrote the copy for the original info page at IQS Directory, and I posted it with IQS' permission because I saw that there was a gap in Wiki's information (i.e. there was no copyright infringement, which is the reason that was given for its deletion). Following the same criteria, I also posted XY tables, which has been tagged with several suggestions on how to improve the article. The action taken on XY tables seems much more reasonable to me. Why wasn't this same action taken on Machine slides instead of outright deletion? I've read all Wiki's guidelines, and I don't see why Machine slides couldn't simply be tagged for improvement. Am I missing something? Thank you - Industman (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Industman. This was deleted as it was a direct cut-and-paste from a website with a prominent (c) Copyright notice. When you submit to the IQS site, they state "IQS shall own all rights and title in the submissions and shall be free to use the submissions, without liability, for any purpose" which means you no longer control the information. If you have permission for using the material you would need to be able to prove that, and even then people may not know of the proof and the page may be deleted again in the future. As always with material taken from a website that has a copyright notice (as this one does) you are best to write it in different language. If you want the same text here as on this (c) website then you need to follow the complicated instructions at Permissions. As a side note, if you wrote the original material then re-posted it here, you still need a reliable source for the facts stated, unless they are obviously common knowledge. Hope I've been helpful here - Peripitus (Talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.iqsdirectory.com
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Industrial baler
I have deleted this page as a copyright violation. I saw your edit summary when creating the page, which read in part: "*Note - copyrighted material has been used with permission from IQS Directory under Creative Commons agreement." However, the terms and conditions of the site expressly state otherwise: ''The material on the Site may not be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of IQS or the copyright owner. You may not, without IQS‘ permission, "mirror" any material contained on this Site on any other server or hyperlink to other websites with this site.'' If you do have such permission, please see WP:OTRS for details of how we can use such content. Thanks, and if you have any questions, please let me know right here on your talk page; I've watchlisted it. Frank |  talk  17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie - While I appreciate your protecting Wikipedia from spam links, I don't think you've reviewed these links fully. Wikipedia clearly states that external links must link to relevant third-party sources; the "information page" content on these links are fully relevant and from an objective source. Have you scrolled to the bottom of these pages to notice that there is an information page, or are you just looking at the ads? Just because these info pages are located on a business site shouldn't mean they are spam; ThomasNet has external links all over Wikipedia, but wikieditors don't seem to care about them. Help?Industman (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Jamie's evaluation. There may well be useful content on the page, but it's overrun with advertising. That's how advertising works; they try to put something useful that people actually might want to look at, and then they pack in as much spam as possible. The fact that there is useful information on the page isn't in question; the fact that it's predominated by spam links is what's relevant here. Frank  |  talk  18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Laser drilling
A tag has been placed on Laser drilling 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 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. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Copyright Infringement
Frank and Ttonyb1 - thanks for the heads up. I do have direct permission from IQS, and was on my way to emailing the Attribution 1.0 license from an IQS authorized email address, as per the instructions I received from Wiki last month. I followed Wiki's instructions on previous articles by emailing the Attribution license from an authorized email address, but these pages keep getting blocked. Is there a way to fix this?Industman (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how what you are doing would work, but the article I deleted made no reference to any WP:OTRS ticket containing permission. As it was introduced completely as a copyright violation, I deleted it; there was no prior revision to revert to. My best advice to you is to get the permission first, and then get it recorded at the Wikimedia Foundation via the OTRS sytem, and then create the article. Frank  |  talk  18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please understand that the comments made above by OhNoitsJamie and Frank are correct. I have arrived later than them, but I would have deleted your links as well. If you read WP:SPA and WP:COI you will realize that Wikipedia will not help to promote your company. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)