Spamtramp

Harold Lewis

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Harold Lewis, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Harold_Lewis_Resignation_letter_93111.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username implies that you are going to continue to insert inappropriate material into ("spam") Wikipedia, as you did at Harold Lewis (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Unblock on hold|1=Orangemike|2=Hi, first of all, thanks for the edits. While the new page I created had lots of faults, it was not spam, and I don't intend to spam the site. As for the user name, I use this on many other sites without any problem. If you don't like it, I will create a new account when I need it. It is OK either way. Spamtramp (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)|3=Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)}}

For the record, it does look like a generic username; spam can refer to anything. If the user promises not to spam, it seems legit to me. OrangeMike, your thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Magog. This is certainly not a name that needed immediate blocking, especially if the user was not indeed spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I gather neither of you read Spamtramp's original version of the article Harold Lewis? It was shameless spamming of Wikipedia in order to publicize somebody's anti-anti-globalwarming e-mail. That wasn't very good evidence of good intentions. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the burst of text, I intended it as a starting point, and when I started to edit it, realized, it is already been edited by others (in less than a minute there were major changes in the article). Anyways, I think adding the new article was a good idea at this point, it is true: the content needed serious editing, and it was done far faster than I could have done, thanks for everyone who participated. Spamtramp (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• What I am seeing here is an objection to your actual edits and a rather ham-handed shoehorning of those problems into a username violation. I've unblocked the account. Please do be careful not to add material that could be considered promotional to Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Spamtramp (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to 99 Luftballons, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what would be in this case the reliable resource? Would a publisher's reference page be adequate?

I am thinking something like this: http://www.amazon.com/99-Words-Boobs-Robert-Lund/dp/B00198OXWI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1297790192&sr=8-1 It has Original Release Date on the page, with author and title. I am really reluctant to link to commercial pages though. Spamtramp

What you need isn't so much evidence that the material exists as that the reference to 99 Luftballoons is itself notable...in essence you need, for instance, the New York Times saying "that was a great reference to the song!" Consensus of late is to make a real effort to avoid potentially trivial or throwaway pop culture references in favor of ones where there's a credible indication that they're considered significant. Doniago (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)