User talk:Madandnaked

Unconventional Action
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Unconventional Action, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.unconventionalaction.org/what_is_ua.html. 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.

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) 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Unconventional Action
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Unconventional Action, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.unconventionalaction.org/what_is_ua.html. 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.

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) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Unconventional Action
A tag has been placed on Unconventional Action 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 include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." 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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BigDunc (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
The material you are copying is posted elsewhere on the internet, which means that its copyright is owned, whether it specifically states it or not. In addition, the article you are adding seems to violate the notability criteria, and also be worded as an advertisement, so even if the material were not copyrighted it would still be deleted for those reasons. If you are a part of this organization, you have a conflict of interest, and so you should not create an article about it- if it truly is a noteworthy organization, someone outside the group will create a neutral article based on the available reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to 2008 Republican National Convention. J.d ela noy gabs adds 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing about this edit that constitutes vandalism.
 * You are trying to use Wikipedia as an announcement board promoting the goals and even the events of one organization. That is not acceptable.  Please, don't do that.  The organization already has a web site that it can use for that purpose; it doesn't need to use Wikipedia as its web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the Republican National Convention constitute if not a similar organization with a similar external website to advertise its planned events? This event I described will bring in some 100,000 participants, far more than the Convention itself.
 * Wow- then it must certainly have been widely publicised in major newspapers, which makes it odd that no one outside the organization has created an article about it. Don't worry at all, in that case- an event that large is going to be all over the newspapers, and someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest is inevitably going to write about it.  You won't need to write about it yourself, which is good, since you're having trouble keeping your writing style neutral, and you have that conflict of interest which prevents you from writing about your own organization.  I'm looking forward to reading about this event in the Washington Post soon... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

C'mon. There will be no media coverage. The last ten years of protesting this administration (at least 5 of which had over 100,000 people) was never covered by mainstream media. Did you even read the article edit on 2008 Republican National Convention? I understand the deletion of "Unconventional Action" (by the way, I'm not a part of this organization) but not the blurb on 2008 Republican National Convention, where I simply noted the planned resistance to the convention. I think it completely worthy information that people are resisting these Conventions with more people than are attending them. If it's worth the St. Paul police department to spend over $100,000 (taxpayer money!) on tazers alone for this event, not to mention the water cannons, helicopters, batons, rubber bullets, machine guns, etc. they're employing, then it is worth noting on a Wikipedia description of the event. Vandalism should be used to describe the "Unconventional Action" edit for sure, but not the RNC edit.