User talk:Lexoleum

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Lex Records has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5338665253).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nevermen (band)
A tag has been placed on Nevermen (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. 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. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lex logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Lex logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LEX LOGO.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:LEX LOGO.jpg. 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. Courcelles 04:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Cee Lo Khujo Jarel.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cee Lo Khujo Jarel.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

'''Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!''' :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=56143372 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lex Records Logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lex Records Logo.jpg. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Lexoleum


A tag has been placed on User:Lexoleum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because I am not guilty of 'blatant advertising' and the criteria for Speedy Deletion, especially G11, or for Spam (both specifically mentioned in the nomination) do not apply.

G11 relates to: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Firstly Lexoleum is a user not a page. If there is a specific issue with a specific page - surely the changes should be made to that page. There is no reason to delete my user account. Secondly, all the pages I have created (or been involved in significant edits of) are factual and do not promote anything, or link to pages selling products (ie. no 'buy links'). All the pages created stand up to user and moderator scrutiny. The references given in support are genuine and valid. The information, quotes and data are accurate. If they are not accurate feel free to contest them. If you think the tone is biased in places, edit them.

The nomination for Spam is completely random. There is no Spam. Definitely none on my user page and none added by me to any pages I have edited.

The articles that I create are added to by many other users around the world over periods of years. I create a stub and do not delete or contest negative feedback on pages. I add artwork, track listsings, links to reviews and background details. For example see the most recent page I created, which has been added to week on week by other users that I have no contact with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Praxis_Makes_Perfect&action=history Or a page for a group on Lex set up last year, which has largely been developed by other users since it's inception: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JJ_DOOM&action=history

I think that creating articles that others add to and expand upon is worthwhile.

Lexoleum is the name of the first artist compilation on Lex Records. Users familiar with the label would be very likely to recognise that the name relates directly to the label. Most of the Lexoleum posts relate to Lex Records artists or releases. The user page says that the Lexoleum account relates to Lex Records. It is not at all covert and is an attempt to be upfront when editing pages that relate to my business - unlike many other indie labels who post about their label anonymously.

It would be interesting to see who the anonymous user "114.164.240.218" requesting this Speedy Deletion is. Is it possible to find out? I'm assuming that this Speedy Deletion nomination is vandalism rather than a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia.

Lexoleum (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have blocked you because your username is an obvious breach of our username policy, in that it suggests (and you confirm) that you are editing on behalf of a company, not as an individual. Your contributions confirm that that is the case. Your right of appeal is explained above. I'm not watching this page, but you can contact me by email if you wish  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few key questions:
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel - I do understand those points. I am actually blocked because of Spam and G11 which don't seem apply. I was not blocked because of COI.

My username is the same as my _personal_ Twitter account and not any current product being promoted by my company. If that was the only issue a change of username would mean that the guidelines were not breached, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ORGNAME#Usernames_implying_shared_use. I have, for many years, explicitly declared my interest in the subject matters based on this guidance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest.

The questions you have raised are entirely valid. I have read the COI guidance. I do not think that my editing fails the tests outlined in those guidelines. People from companies are clearly not banned from editing pages relating to those companies, however there are very clear guidelines. Taking the Praxis Makes Perfect page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_Makes_Perfect) as an example of my activity - it was deleted by the same admin for the same issue at the same time, it is clear that this doesn't fall foul of COI guidelines, because my editing was entirely factual and only formed a stub which other editors over a few weeks, then added the bulk of the content to. If there is any element of my edit of that page that displayed any bias whatsoever, could you please point it out?

The album 'Praxis Makes Perfect' is clearly notable by WP definitions. The album charted in the UK at #43 and has been reviewed widely in UK and American media, as I mentioned before it was Sunday Times AOTW (demonstrating that the UK's biggest selling 'quality broadsheet' deemed it to be the most important album release that week), and the album is the subject of a sold out run of a National Theatre Of Wales stage show, by a group who's last album was nominated for a Mercury Music Prize. If that doesn't meet notability requirements (and instead seems to fall into the 'sales catalogue' part of the guide 'Wikipedia is not a directory') I would genuinely welcome that feedback.

I still believe that the editorial input I have had in Wikipedia has been beneficial to Wikipedia, mainly adding references, media ( I have uploaded media to illustrate pages based on this guidance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Photographs_and_media_files) and detail to existing pages or adding well formatted stubs with purely factual information. In the case of Praxis Makes Perfect, I was creating a well laid out stub for a page that was certain to be created in the near future (this assertion is supported by the number of edits it received after I created the stub). This is a long way from spamming Wikipedia or failing under G11 by creating "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."

I am hoping you understand that Wikipedia and the music I'm involved in are two things that I'm keen to work on thoroughly and I would like the opportunity to continue to contribute to. Hopefully, someone will see the merit in removing the block for spam and possibly in reinstating the Praxis Makes Perfect page that the admin deleted on the basis it was spam, on the grounds that I do not spam and the page was not spam.

Thanks Tom Lexoleum (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lex Records Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lex Records 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)