User talk:Shawkey3

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Response Insurance, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Response Insurance appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Response Insurance has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

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:Response Insurance 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:Response Insurance 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:Response Insurance.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. -- MKoltnow (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(text transferred from Talk:Response Insurance)


 * I am someone who works with Response Insurance and I was given permisssion to make a page using information from there website. I had not had a chance to complete the page which would have references included before it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawkey3 (talk • contribs)

Then you create and edit this article with considerable conflict of interest. -- MKoltnow (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You have recently recreated or reposted material which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this page without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the page's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. MKoltnow (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC) If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. MKoltnow (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia you will be blocked. MKoltnow (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Response Insurance
Hello. The article has been deleted again. The tone is promotional and you have a very clear conflict of interest when writing about your company with the stated blessing of your company. I have also deleted the two images since, despite your claim to the contrary, these images are copyrighted and I am almost certain that the marketing department of Response Insurance does not want its logo to be public domain. If they do agree to it, then we would certainly need some sort of official statement by the company for this because it has legal repercussions beyond "it's ok to use the image on Wikipedia". Best, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you're actually working for the company is a moot point really because it is clear that you are editing the article with a conflict of interest. I'll concede that the latest version of the article is not as bad as its previous incarnations but its tone is still inappropriate (in particular the glowing paragraph on the national surveys) and it is still mostly referenced through the company's website and not through reliable third-party sources. If there is a need for a Wikipedia article on Response Insurance, then it will eventually be created by someone who has no ties with the company and that's the healthiest way to let it happen. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There may indeed be a lot of junk on the Geico article and you're more than welcome to make sure that spam in that article is removed accordingly. But the shortcomings of that article do not make the shortcomings of the Response Insurance article any more acceptable. I'm not sure whether or not you have read Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest but please do so. I do not think that you are in a position to write an objective article on this company (and as far as I understand you work for a public relations company, so I'm sure you'll understand the problem here). I suggest that you instead make a request for the article here and let someone else do it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Response Insurance
A tag has been placed on Response Insurance, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Merenta (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as your new page is concerned, be sure to add the "hangon" tag to it and an administrator will eventually make the final judgement as to whether it stays or goes. Also put your rationale for the changes you made on the new article's talk page. Happy editing! Merenta (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ResponseInsLogo2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ResponseInsLogo2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ResponseInsLogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ResponseInsLogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment to Stifle
Seriously, did you read everything posted to you above about Response Insurance? Read it again, carefully. Then explain how this company still qualifies as notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Response Insurance
This page should not have been deleted...There was no promotional info on the whole page. There is also no reason for a page to be deleted without warning, please let me know what has to be done to put this page back up.--Shawkey3 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Insurance was deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly number 11, a page existing only to promote a product or service. It is also eligible for deletion under number 7 in the Articles section, an article about a company which does not explain its importance or significance.
 * Speedy deletion is a process for the quick removal of content which there is a consensus to remove from Wikipedia. By its very nature it is not required to notify anyone (although it is generally done where possible).
 * You would have to provide citations from reliable sources which prove that your company is notable and meets the inclusion criteria if you want the page to be restored. If you think I acted incorrectly in deleting the page, you can file a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Any word yet on wether or not this page will be brought back from the dead??--Shawkey3 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was deleted for no good reason...I understand there was a "Notability" issue brought up...but Response Insurance is a real insurance company with policyholders and employees, which should be enough to keep it on Wikipedia. Also, this page was deemed a justified page previously by another administrator if you reference the past history.--Shawkey3 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted per CSD:A7, which is plenty good reason. You have yet to provide citations from reliable sources which verify that the company is notable and meets the guidelines. All you have said is it exists. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ResponseInsLogo2.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:ResponseInsLogo2.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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page
WP:CORP proves your company is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, regardless if you make the page look like some other notable insurance comapny's article page. Notability is what you need to keep the article. Once again: NOTABILITY. Thanks for playing. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page
I have not received the promised email from Stifle yet. You are certainly welcome to take over and ask for the copy for yourself, and edit it at a location like User:Shawkey3/Response Insurance, until it meets the notability criteria. Incedentally, Unitrin Direct is notable partly because it is a subsidiary of Unitrin, Inc. a notable company. If Response Insurance has similar pedigree (and you can find sourcing for this) then that may be used as a qualification for notability. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The page User:Shawkey3/Response Insurance is available for you to work on. Please remember to read WP:CORP to measure notability crtieria.  I'll keep an eye on it with you to help you along.  A claim of notability will be needed to circumvent speedy deletion. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)