User talk:SHurley619

Written by the subject
I'm aware you're not a direct employee of PCN, what you've posted on your user page indicates you were hired by a PR firm, and the PR firm (as a representative of PCN) provided you with the text.

As to deleting, I intend to research if more sources are available about the company, and if that is not the case, open a discussion about deleting the article (WP:AFD). I don't have the time to do that today, so I'll likely do it Sunday. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved my notes to appropriate page.
I asked if everyone would direct any comments to my talk page, while I was rambling on my user page, sorry. This section is just stuff I moved over:

I am doing my best to paint an accurate picture that has no need for a cryptologist, or scatologist, or whatever else rude "Shit" you were all saying about my other posts. Hopefully you are keeping up, if not go to my talk page and ask away. I will do my best to clarify any confusion. There is more to come, I am doing my best to get this done as quickly as possible without losing the skeptics along the way. My apologies if I come across a little bitter, probably because I am.SHurley619(talk) 07:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For those of you just tuning in, you might want to read Newbie Theory athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy.This thread should be added to Doc's article, Don't feed the divas as an prime example.

Another user just wrote: "According to User:SHurley619, this page was written by the company in question. OSborn arfcontribs." on the page in question. Let me take you back to where I pointed out that the job was awarded to several different freelancers, and spell it out for you, since it was not obvious enough. PCN Technology did not hire me, why would a company hire eight people to write the same page? The person, or company that hired me, hired eight people to write eight different articles about eight different subjects, HELLO! And why is OSborn so insistent on moving the article, and suggesting someone re-write it, why not flag it for deletion if anything? Seems a little suspicious if you ask me, but then again, I am the one accused of "making up my own plot," and I should expect that I will be accused of the same here, so I am not sure why I bother, seems like this is a waste of time. I have not even had a chance to get to the good part. Before I go any further, does anyone believe me now, Is anyone interested in learning the rest? If anyone has anything to say, please go to my talk page and say it, because I am not going to waste my time, if everyone is going to remain resistant, no matter how much proof I show, if this is pointless than why bother, right?SHurley619 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)SHurley619 (talk)
 * I just read the thread at Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy and it seems to me you were treated pretty shabbily there. However, you did invite it by being so elliptical and for putting the emphasis on the conspiracy theory of market-driven opposition to the new policy, as opposed to just coming out and telling your story straight. And you are continuing to be elliptical here. It kind of stinks of attention-seeking and manipulativeness that comes with that, and tests assumptions of good faith. Nonetheless I will assume good faith and ask.. please do finish the story. And please do finish it; I'll only ask once. It does seem to me, to be a story that is very apt for the policy discussion, and directly so.Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, thanks but I am not seeking attention, what I am out to get is a reaction. You can really learn a lot from the way someone reacts to a given situation. And if you're wondering why, it is simply because I actually became invested in the article and the asshole that hired me kept F-ing with it! Then gave $20 and F--ed with it some more, didn't even leave me any feedback after I worked a month for $20. I would rather not gotten the twenty and been able see an article that I wrote on Wikipedia. pay attention to the rest of the story.SHurley619 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And... instead of a straight answer, more teasing. I told you I would ask once.  I gave you a shot; you will not get any more of my attention.  Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of PCN Technology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PCN Technology 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/PCN Technology 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..Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PCN Technology


Hello SHurley619. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "PCN Technology".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. -- t  numbermaniac  c  09:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Job description and terms.gif


A tag has been placed on File:Job description and terms.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 "Click here to 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)