User talk:Hrsemn4

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WuhWuzDat 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being much more constructive and not so criticizing, as I found the other "moderators" to be. I would like to rebuild this page if possible, so could you clear up a couple of questions?

1) Is the deletion due simply to the accidental link to a commercial website, or are you (meaning wikipedia) saying that no page should be made on this subject?

2) If it is due to the latter above, would it be reasonable to add this info to the "popular culture" section of the fullerene article, even though you call the connection "tenuous"? How about adding to the Jake Bronstein article, certainly that connection is more tenable?

Thank you again for your constructive suggestions and for giving me a little more faith in Wikipedia's moderation process. Please look over some of the other comments from other moderators and consider advising them of other ways of handling similar situations.Hrsemn4 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Zoomdoggle's BuckyBalls. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. "at the request of the company"? PURE SPAM WuhWuzDat 15:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it, I can understand the confusion, so I apologize.Hrsemn4 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. WuhWuzDat 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it.Hrsemn4 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to, I was trying to respond to it. The instructions were a bit confusing, I apologize.Hrsemn4 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your statement that "I do not work for Zoomdoggle, or any subsidiary thereof" when your edit summary for your creation of the page says, "Made new page at the request of the company". Thank you. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company "Zoomdoggle" mentioned on it's Facebook page that it did not have a Wiki page and asked if there were any "fans" that would like to try and build one. "At the request of the company" is one way of understanding that, but I do not work for Zoomdoggle. In addition, I'm trying very hard to make this page the "right way", but the guidance for doing so is a bit cryptic and hard to find. I have removed the material that could have been understood as being for commercial gain (I made a mistake, was notified, and fixed it). To delete this page seems to send the message that Wikipedia demands perfection from the onset and does not allow for people to err and learn. All my "violations" listed have been as a result of misunderstanding the method by which the pages are constructed and these "notifications" posted. Please give me a chance to learn from my mistakes. Thank you for your guidance thus far.Hrsemn4 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this still read as promotional. I find no evidence of

WP:V so that you understand our notability and verifiability requirements. Dlohcierekim 17:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what "disruptive edits" have I made? What "vandalism" did I perform? From your own redirect: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring)."

This is EXACTLY what happened in this case, I attempted to make a page and made mistakes along the way. Each time, I acknowledged my error, apologized, and did my best to remedy the supposed "violation" i.e. removing the link to a commerical site which I do not own or have any connection with outside of being a consumer once I was warned it was problematic. Your accusation seems to imply forethought and malice, neither of which are present or could be proven to be so. Please be more considerate of new users, what I take to be a malicious tone in your "warning" makes me very unlikely to trust Wikipedia in the future.Hrsemn4 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]