User talk:Unsavvyscott

A tag has been placed on Ol' glory, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the deletion tag from Ol' glory. Please read the information listed there and follow the procedure indicated. Corvus cornix 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the tag, especially the part which says do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. Corvus cornix 07:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Ol' Glory, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how Ol' Glory is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Ol' Glory saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Corvus cornix 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Uncle-sam-poster-300px.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Uncle-sam-poster-300px.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 08:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ol' Glory
Have you read the links that we have provided? Our reliable sources guideline specifically limits the uses of forums or blogs to prove notability. Just because I exist, or you exist, doesn't mean that somebody should write articles about us. The subjects of Wikipedia articles need to have proof from multiple reliable sources that they are known, you have failed to do so. You also recreated an article after an admin had deleted it. Corvus cornix 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Is your head up you posterior? Why don't you go delete the Rockstar entry? Why does one product have more notability than another? I have listed multiple sources. There needs to be reliable information about Ol' Glory that can be discussed openly. You, yourself, have even testified to seeing the product. Ol' Glory needs to be represented fairly and accurately, which is what I am trying to do. Creating this article is taking time and is a work in progress, like all wiki entries. Please excuse my novice skills, this is the first entry I have ever made and I'm very new at this.

--Unsavvyscott 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, all this has proven to me is that wikipedia only cares about big rich companies and not providing accurate information. This site is a disgrace and the users are all asshats.

--Unsavvyscott 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, as that was never my intention. It was, however, to provide reliable sources, which you repeatedly failed to do.  Wikipedia, in most circumstances, cannot accept blogs and forums as reliable sources.  If there are newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, etc., which discuss the product, and you can provide something about marketing, sales, company history, etc., then we would be more than happy to have your article.  But it just didn't meet Wikipedia's requirements.  And although it may look like Wikipedia only "cares about big companies", that isn't true.  And you never provided verifiable accurate information.  Anybody on a blog can claim something, but unless other readers can see the same sources and verify that what the person making the claim knows what they're talking about, it isn't reliable.  Wikipedia has been burned too many times in the past, unfortunately.  Corvus cornix 17:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)