User talk:Simple Green Tech Dept

Speedy deletion of User:Simple Green Tech Dept
A tag has been placed on User:Simple Green Tech Dept, 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 the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business 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 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 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Contest of Deletion
I am an employee of Sunshine Makers, Inc. in their Technical Department.

If you review the history of the Simple Green page, you will see that there have been numerous informational changes which have occured by any number of users with an IP address leading back to the Clorox company, an obvious competitor.

Formula information disclosed by other users is fallacious on several levels.

Rather than monitoring these changes through a personal account, I have created a corporate account that anyone in our techincal department can sign on to and handle appropriately.

If there is something wrong with matter please let me know.
 * Hi. Here are the problems. First see Username. Then also see Username. Your changes to the article did not improve the "reads like an advertisement" issue. It also did not improve the referencing. The additions are what we call original research. I await your reply. لenna  vecia  17:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, we have a policy against copyright violations. While you work for the company, that doesn't allow for the copy/paste of content from a copyrighted website. The addition has been deleted. Please do not add it again. لenna  vecia  17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Business' FAQ and Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

You may appeal this block by adding the text  or emailing the administrator who blocked you. Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions and references are appreciated. However, is there a way to go about deleting the Simple Green entry. Daily monitoring of this webpage for constant false ingredient disclosure is tedious to my workday, and my entire company would rather not have this article up there.

Also...the article as it was in it's original form reads like an advertisement. All other wikipedia articles for chemical manufacturers have a general statement, small history, and product line information and that's about it. Other than my error in the straight copywrite violation, how is making our article to look like one from any other chemical manufacturer making it look like advertising?


 * It's been deleted. The issue was with the way the history was written. It wasn't encylcopedic. It was written for the company website, and that much was obvious. The first sentence, for example, is not something one expects to find in an encyclopedia. لenna  vecia  17:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So if the history is rewritten to be of a appropriate format, and issued from a personal account. The remainder of the changes would have been acceptable? As my company managers are requesting that I take the appropriate actions to keep false ingredient statements from constantly being added.