Welcome!

Hello, Forgottenbooks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Forgotten books.org, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{ helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Forgotten books.org requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Forgotten Books, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous 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 and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at Forgotten Books, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please refrain from writing autobiographical articles, as you did at Forgotten Books. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged; if you create such an article, it may be deleted. All edits to articles must conform to our policies on no original research, neutral point of view, and avoid conflicts of interest. Please remember that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a personal webspace provider. If your achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Forgotten Books, you may be blocked from editing. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

• Add the text {{ unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
• Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
• Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block.

-- Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ecoles91 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Requested username:

lizziecoles91 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I am actually rather outraged that my account was blacked without any prior consultation with me, either to explain any errors or even just as a common courtesy. This is the second disappointment I have had with the way Wiki is being run. The first was when my page was deleted in the same fashion - Despite my comments giving reason why they should not be, my asking for clarification and my asking for advice. My original username was forgottenbooks not because I am a part of that organisation but because that was the only thing I was intending to create a page about. Nobody asked me about this, everyone has just assumed, incorrectly, that I am an employee or similar of Forgotten Books. I am actually So Very Annoyed by this it has totally ruined my morning. The reason I wished to write a page for Forgotten Books is that they are cited as references and other on many many other Wiki pages and yet no info was readily available. I ask you to unban my account and un-delete my article please, if only to prevent my now minuscule faith in humanity from slipping further into the gutter. I am more than happy for my article to be moved back to my user space if it is not currently up to standards and would very much appreciate any advice on what I am apparently doing wrong on this matter.

Decline reason:

Your proposed new username is fine, the remainder of your unblock request is not. If you cannot understand why the blatantly promotional language in the deleted article is not acceptable for an encyclopedia article then it would not be in Wikipedia's best interest to unblock you. The assumption that you are involved in some way with the subject was almost certainly based on he fact that the content you posted used a first person perspective, combined with the fact that your username was clearly meant to represent an organization, not an individual. However I can see that what you actually did was violate their copyright by simply copy/pasting the content of their homepage onto Wikipedia. So there's yet anther serious problem with your contributions. Unless and until you can demonstrate that you understand that Wikipedia cannot be used for advertising or promotion and that we take copyright very seriously this account will have to remain blocked. If your only interest here is in writing about this organization in this same overtly promotional manner then we have nothing further to discuss. If, on the other hand, you would be interested in making contributions in the neutral tone expected of an encyclopedia and can demonstrate that you have interests here above and beyond shilling for Forgotten Books then we may be able to work through this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Beeblebrox, First of all in response to your claim that I violated Forgotten Books' copyright by pasting from their website - Clearly this is not the case as in my description I clearly state "Forgotten Books home page reads" (or similar) and then follow with the quote encased in quote marks. Modern and indeed not so modern writing (and hence the state of current knowledge) would be in some sorry state if quotations were not allowed. I did in fact double check this point via multiple sources before going ahead and putting the quotation on the page because I am aware of Wiki's stance on copyright infringement. Secondly I again express my distaste at the manner in which my account, my page and myself have been treated by users of Wikipedia. As previously stated, I did not believe myself to be writing a particularly promotional article, simply putting down the facts about the services that Forgotten Books give that I am aware of - I am not sure what you mean when you say that I used a first person perspective... Where exactly? I am however more than happy to admit that I am not so knowledgeable about such topics that I would disagree with you and others who obviously believe that the article was promotional - I will even concede that I should have researched this matter more thoroughly before moving my page from my user space, my bad. However I have clearly been more than happy to amend my error, I made 2 attempts at this in the brief time before my article was deleted and asked twice for advice on the subject - I remind you again that I was ignored both times.

I make no claim that I was not in any error. I would have thought that Wiki users would not be in such a rush to condemn me for my mistakes and might actually take a few moments to give aid and advice to a newcomer to Wiki, even if the page itself was still eventually deleted or (as I would have much preferred) just put back into my user space to be re-written. I am genuinely upset about just how wrong I was in thinking this. It is 3:41 AM when I write this because I can't sleep for, I'll be honest, a significant amount of outrage and not a small amount of bitter disappointment. Pathetic really. Forgottenbooks ( talk) 03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Here are a few key questions:

• Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
• Do you understand conflict of interest?
• Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Daniel, Once again... Yes, I made a mistake in my choice of username. I have since been condemned because of incorrect assumptions for which I partly blame myself for said mistake. Much more though, I blame Wiki users so keen to stamp out any potential wrongdoing they utterly ignore any counter argument or appeal for advice. I will say this one last time. I am not associated with Forgotten Books. The reason I wished to write a page for them - And my will is now pretty much utterly sapped - is that they are cited on a significant number of other Wiki pages, mostly as references. I genuinely believe that Forgotten Books are some of the good guys, they seem to be doing a lot of work to keep old knowledge alive and easily accessible.

Also Daniel, the way you phrase your bullet points is rather patronising - I don't know if you meant it as such so I say nothing against you, but just so you know.

Forgottenbooks ( talk) 03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll grant that you did preface the article by stating that what followed was from their website, but much of the rest was copied straight from their website. (in the first person, since you asked, i.e. "We reprint classical literature and old books that have long been out of print. Many of our books you may not find elsewhere.") There are literally hundreds of incidents every day where persons try to add inappropriate content of one sort of another to Wikipedia, it takes a great deal of time and effort to sort it all out. Your edits and username bear all the hallmarks of a deliberate spammer, we can't see your thoughts and read your motivations, we can only go by what you actually do, which was to select a name that represented an organization and then create an article full of promotional language related to that organization. Whether they are "some of the good guys" or not we can't allow that sort of thing or this project would become a free-for-all of self promotion and would never be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. I'm sorry this is keeping you awake, it's really not that big of a deal, if they are truly notable a proper article will be written at some point despite all this. In any event, I am willing to unblock you since you have acknowledged at least some of your own errors and seem genuinely willing to attempt to rectify the situation. Please file a rename request at WP:CHU as soon as you see this so that we can put the account name issue in the past once and for all. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The "We reprint classical literature and old books that have long been out of print. Many of our books you may not find elsewhere." was actually still part of the quotation from the website - It looks kind of like it isn't as it was on a new paragraph so I see why you made that mistake. Yes, I do realise that there are a lot of people intentionally putting inappropriate content on Wiki and that you get used to just rushing through getting rid of them - However I do not think that excuses blatantly ignoring messages asking for clarification and advice - Granted, it was others and not yourself that did this. I will file the request now, my thanks for your understanding - If I write up something more appropriate for Forgotten Books on my user space (in a couple of weeks or so most likely, when I have the will back), would you mind taking a look at it and giving a critique? Regards Forgottenbooks ( talk) 13:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Looks like I have to be unblocked before applying for a new username. Forgottenbooks ( talk) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You have been unblocked. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Check again, you should be able to edit now. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, that's done. Thanks both. Forgottenbooks ( talk) 19:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply