User talk:QuantumDirectMail

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Quantumdigital, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Quantumdigital appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Quantumdigital has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Quantumdigital and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Quantumdigital with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Quantumdigital.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. JNW (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have re-nominated the article for speedy deletion as an unsalvageable advertisement. (Wikipedia is not an advertising board, or otherwise a means for companies to promote themselves. See the guidelines on conflict of interest for further information.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not really understand how "talk pages" work to be honest so Ill just edit here. This page wasn't created by the company themselves. I created it. I took it from their "about us" page-which is more of a company "milestones" as well as a informational page. It does not sell a particular product or service, it doesnt call out any offers, there is no "merchandising" beyond stating the facts of what the company's services are. It is very similar in nature to VistaPrint or any other company's informational page. The page doesn't include any of my opinions about the company nor does it state anything infactual. The page created doesn't afford the company any greater or less "advertising" than any other company's informational page. I had the chief executive email you for permissions, but the submission did not originally come FROM their company. If you could post here as to what exactly was the problem I would appreciate it?
 * That the text has been lifted from the company's "about us" page is exactly what is wrong with the article. Its tone was clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedic article - it was even written in the first person. As for the company's achievements, the article cited no references; information in articles need to be referenced using third-party sources whenever possible. (In fact, the primary criterion to determine the notability of a subject is: did it attract non-trivial coverage from independent third-party sources?) I have looked at the article VistaPrint, and I'd say it's borderline. It isn't a deletion candidate as a promotional piece, and it indeed cites third-party sources; however, some of the content doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia (phrases like "this is where VistaPrint comes in" could have easily appeared in a company brochure). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)