Jump to content

User talk:Rabhyanker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rabhyanker (talk | contribs) at 09:22, 1 March 2010 (→‎Conflict of interest). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Rabhyanker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag

Hello, please do not remove an "Article for deletion" tag, this is considered an inappropriate behavior on wikipedia. --Edcolins 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, he's 100% right. The deletion discussion is going to proceed whether you want it to or not, and by removing the tag you're preventing people who see the article and are interested in keeping it from knowing where to go. Instead of just removing it, why not go to the discussion page and be one of the first to add your opinion? Another good reason not to remove the tag, by the way, is that doing so is a blockable offence and I won't tolerate your repeated removals. Okay? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Abhyankar.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Abhyankar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Edcolins 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is my picture and I hold its copyright interest. I release myself of the copyright interest in this, I am a U.S. intellectual property attorney.

Notability of Fatdoor

A tag has been placed on Fatdoor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) 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 confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Finngall talk 17:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already directed you to the notability guidelines, but I should also point out that writing about one's own company or products is strongly discouraged for reasons of avoiding conflict of interest and maintaining objectivity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or a provider of free web space. My personal non-legalistic summary (all disclaimers apply) of the notability guidelines: If your company is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, then someone you don't know and who has no connection with the company will write the article. --Finngall talk 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Trademarkia

A tag has been placed on Trademarkia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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), 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. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page iPhone do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Please do not use Wikipedia to promote Trademarkia. Atama頭 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Trademarkia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Cquan (after the beep...) 06:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarkia

Hi there. We've had a number of issues with single-purpose accounts connected to your account here, and their sole purpose appears to be spamming links to your organization across multiple articles. The accounts User:AishaBoue, User:Trademark editor and User: TrademarkSearcher are all connected to you here. Also, User:Shivanibhargava and User:Priyankadaga are  Likely to be. I've not blocked them from editing other than blocking that last account, which was too blatant to ignore, but I'd really like to know what is going on, especially that an account you likely control has created the article Trademarkia on here - Allie ❤ 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also seriously considering deleting the article, or at least nominating it for deletion, especially given that you or your colleagues wrote it, that it doesn't meet our notability policy and that it's already previously been deleted and re-created - Allie ❤ 07:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Allie, I appreciate your feedback, and have emailed the authors you mentioned to not spam Wikipedia. My posts span a variety of topic areas, but generally add value to by enhancing incorrect/incomplete information on Wikipedia posts when related to intellectual property/trademarks. Please let me know if my posts can be better. I am in Mountain View, call me at 650-965-8731 if you wish. I believe that Trademarkia adds significant historical value, as there is no place on the Internet to search for Trademarks filed before the year 1932. Furthermore, Trademarkia is often the first site to release public information related to Trademarks and therefore it adds significant context to posts on Wikipedia. I have corresponded regarding this topic and conflict of interest with Wikipedia editors on the Wikipedia conflict thread, and have made great effort to ensure that my posts meet the neutrality and editorial guidelines of Wikipedia moving forward. Do let me know if there is something more I can do to improve the quality of my posts. Happy Holidays. - User:Rabhyanker, 09:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of ISlate

I have nominated ISlate, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISlate. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andareed (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me

Hello Rabhyanker, I noticed you're tying to get my version of the McDonald's corprate logo vector graphic on the McDonald's article, I also hapened apoun the FaCt on your user page that your feild of specalty is trademaks. Is there any way you cloud help me thith te porblems I'm having with talk:McDonald's and the other users User:Jerem43 User:Tkgd2007. You can review my dicusions with User:Jerem43 at Talk:McDonald's#Time_for_a_logo_change.2C_corporate_is_using_this_new_logo.2C_so_don.27t_revert and User_talk:Koman90#McDonald.27s_Corporation_logo. also what can we do about User:Jerem43 and how he as be presenting himself as if he were an adminstrator. Thank you 

Koman90 (Talk), 
 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:RonaldMcDonald-trademarkia-originaltrademark1967.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RonaldMcDonald-trademarkia-originaltrademark1967.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Svgalbertian (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also File:Microsoft-logo-trademarkia-1982-earliest.jpg, File:Cisco Bridge Logo1989.jpeg. Filing a trademark application does not transfer the orginal images copyright to the US Government. --Svgalbertian (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your response. In fact, I am a U.S. intellectual property attorney and made these posts/edits. Furthermore, I am a member of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Bar.[1] The USPTO itself writes "Records open to the public are searched by users for the purpose of determining ownership for other property rights with respect to patents and trademarks"[2], and encourages the public to access and broadly disseminate such public releases through its bulk downloads and free search information system[3] as implemented on Trademarkia.[4] I can tell you that the display and publishing of these marks along with their USPTO source information identifying them as federally registered U.S. trademarks does not violate intellectual property law. In fact, the main goal of the United States intellectual property system is for the government to exchange limited monopoly rights in exchange for disclosure of intellectual property. The cited U.S. registered trademarks, including the Ronald McDonald logo, the Microsoft Logo, the Coca-Cola logo are self-provided by the respective companies/owners to the United States Patent & Trademark Office for the specific purpose of dissemination and publishing as U.S. federally registered logo trademark interests.[5] The edits and publishing made is consistent with U.S. federal government policy and such use is encouraged to help the public better understand the source of trademark rights. It should be noted that these marks correspond to actual, and documented recordings as registered trademarks at the United States Trademark office, and are not to be confused with other stylistic works of authorship which may embody stylized artistic forms of such logos. Such items may have distinct that copyright interests. However, the published marks on Trademarkia that you challenge are registered U.S. trademarks have been filed to help identify the source of goods and services on which these marks are affixed. Unlike copyright records, for which the U.S. government releases only index information (as opposed to the actual work of authorship)[6], the cited trademark logos are U.S. federally registered trademarks of these respective companies under United States trademark law.[7] The goal of U.S. trademark law is to let the public be aware of trademark rights of owners through the open and free publishing of such logo marks in the public record, and for public dissemination, to help identify the source of a particular type of good or service proffered with such marks.[8] The USPTO itself write "After the information is recorded, the records and associated documents can be inspected by the public and are not confidential, except for documents that are sealed under secrecy orders or related to unpublished patent applications."[9] As such, these marks when placed in context of identifying their corporate source, not only is consistent with United States intellectual property law, but furthers a substantial and legitimate U.S. government interest. It is in the interest of the United States government and the public to provide free and open dissemination and knowledge of trademark rights so as to have a more informed public and to provide clear attribution to the source of goods and services. My Wikipedia edits and posts of these trademarked logos are consistent with and furthers this public policy. These images are fully public when used to identify the source of goods or services as in my Wikipedia edits. Therefore, these logo marks as currently posted should stay, and the legitimacy for the free publishing of these marks when used to identify specific trademark ownership interests in context of company history is indisputable. If you have further comments, do let me know. --Rabhyanker (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the picture of the original Ronald McDonald as pictured on the United States trademark application filed in 1967 by the McDonald's restaurants.[10] On Tuesday, September 05, 1967, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for Ronald McDonald. This trademark is owned by McDonald's Corporation of Oak Brook, Illinois.[11] The description provided to the USPTO for is drive-in restaurant services.The USPTO has given the trademark serial number of 72279672.[12] The current status of the trademark is registered and renewed.[13] --Rabhyanker (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://rajpatent.com/rajvabhyanker.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/pto1594.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/notices/lctbd.jsp
  4. ^ http://www.trademarkia.com
  5. ^ http://www.uspto.gov
  6. ^ http://www.copyright.gov
  7. ^ http://www.uspto.gov
  8. ^ http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/0100.htm#_T104
  9. ^ Privacy Policy http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/pto1594.pdf
  10. ^ http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-72279672.html
  11. ^ http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-72279672.html
  12. ^ http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-72279672.html
  13. ^ http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-72279672.html

Interesting read. However my objection over is under how it is licensed, "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code."

Wikipedia allows the hosting of trademarks, so that is not an issue (see: Wikipedia:Logos#Trademark_concerns). Your points on the freedom to distribute trademark records are probably valid, but issue is copyright. Do these companies really transfer the copyright of their logos to the US government? Or do you consider the free use of trademark a “fair use” of their original copyright? In terms of copyright I refer to the applicant, as the US Government does not hold copyrights in this case.

This is not really an issue of "can this be done" on Wikipedia, just about how to do it right. If you do not believe the original company loses copyright, then these images should be tagged {{Non-free logo}} {{Trademarked}} Or in cases where copyright has expired due to age use {{PD-US}} {{Trademarked}}.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • For the purposes of identification of the source of goods and services in this context, the use of the U.S. copyright interest associated with a registered and publicly disseminated U.S. trademark logo is under the purview of fair use. The owning company does not in any way surrender its copyright. That being said, a company wishing to assert its U.S. copyright interest in U.S. federal court for such legitimate use of actual images of U.S. trademarked logos would find itself in the unenviable position of diluting/eliminating its own U.S. trademark rights. Furthermore, to the extent that this is a logo published by a U.S. federal government agency as part of its public dissemination of public information, it is a public work when regarded as a whole work of authorship comprising a plurality of trademarked logos in a calendar year/period. I have updated the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page as well. Kind regards, Raj --Rabhyanker (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rab, while I certainly appreciate your input on the matter, I think it would be best to discuss such substantial changes (5 KB of additional text) on the talk page first. In general, I agree with you, but some of the nuances you've used (i.e. use of trademarks falls under Fair Use implies a use of a copyrighted image, but then you say they are public use), provide contradictory advice. I'm also concerned with the fact that you've stepped into an area that affects probably tens of thousands of articles and images. Such sweeping changes need to be vetted. I'm not saying you are wrong (near as I can tell you are 100% correct), but you will get pushback on this and working through the talkpage will reduce some hostility, provide a better consensus, and work out any ambiguities before making such an addition. I'm also concerned with your addition of yourself as a source. While you certainly are an expert on the subject, you may not be the best expert on Wikipedia; in any case, self-published sources or WP:OR are not permitted on Wikipedia. Lastly, guideline pages should not contain signatures; if you would be so kind as to remove yours, it would be appreciated. Once again, THANK YOU for such an addition. Such clarity and having an expert on the subject is a GREAT addition to this encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — talk 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


          • Thank you for your response. I must point out to you that there is no inherent conflict between my comment regarding "fair use", and "public use" of public information. The artistic elements of the logo trademark, such as the Ronald McDonald trademark[1], have underlying U.S. copyright interest. When this copyright interest used to identify a source of goods and services, there is fair use if what is being reproduced is the exact same logo trademark published by the U.S. trademark office. In other words, when reproduced by the public for the purpose of identifying a source of goods and services, such use is fair use of public information serving an important and legitimate government purpose to inform the public of ownership rights associated with the source of goods and services marked with such logos. Also, it should be noted that when government work (or any other work of authorship including non-government works) is put together in a compilation of individually copyrighted works of authorship (e.g. in this case being used under fair use provisions) or government public publications, a new resulting copyright is derived in the arrangement of that aggregate work if the resulting compilation is more than a mere natural (e.g., alphabetic) arrangement. Direct reproductions of of public information can be characterized as public use of public information. In summary, the term "fair use" is applicable when describing the publication of information as it relates to the rights of owner of copyright. In contrast, the term "public use" is applicable when describing the publication of information as it relates to the interests of the United States government to disseminate public information related to intellectual property rights in exchange for a limited monopoly. As such, these edits qualify for that as well. I will update my posts to clarify this further. talk 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)--Rabhyanker (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            Point taken. Let's try to make it easier to understand in Wikipedia then. Like I said before, your inputs are certainly welcome and a breath of fresh air. We just need to make sure there aren't any other problematic language issues (legal-ese and Wikipedian dialects don't always mesh well :-) ). — BQZip01 — talk 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The repubishing of the trademark by the USPTO is not a transfer of copyright from the company or organization registering the trademark to the US Gov't. That image does not become public domain simply because the gov't has published it. (the implication of the PD-gov license). The copyright of the trademark image still follows all other regular US laws - so factors such as the date of creation and the threshold of originality come into play to determine if a trademark image is copyrighted or not. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Per my comments above, I agree with you. It is not a transfer of copyright interest. However, when the exact same logo as the one that is used in the U.S. federal trademark is used to inform the public of the source of a good or service, that is fair use of the copyright interest under both U.S. copyright and trademark laws. This is further substantiated by the fact that the USPTO makes this information freely available both in online and bulk form for public dissemination. talk 11:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)--Rabhyanker (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that it is suddenly a PD image for everyone to use though. — BQZip01 — talk 18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are likely right that it is fair use. But fair use is not the equivalent of "free use" (free being the "free as in thought", not "free as in beer" concept). An image on WP that is used under fair use assumptions is considered non-free because it is still burdened by copyright (but note, not trademark) and we are not free to allow unlimited redistribution of the image. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've noted on the WP:PUF page that this image likely falls under {{PD-Pre1978}} anyway. — BQZip01 — talk 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Editors are free to use it if used in Wikipedia pages of the owner of the trademark to help the public better understand the ownership rights associated with a U.S. trademark, or the source/origin of a particular good or service. The U.S. trademarked logo should not be used to dilute ownership rights of the trademark owner or to create marketplace confusion by placement on pages not describing the history or legal rights of an owner. talk 11:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)--Rabhyanker (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Agreed. Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks covers this. It should also be labeled as {{Trademark}} to make this clear. — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You are right that we consider the inclusion of trademarks important as company/organization/brand identification, regardless if they are copyrighted or not. When the logos are copyrighted, then we have to consider them as non-free, identifying them as trademarks, but again, this doesn't mean we can't include them, just that we have to justify the image's use through a non-free rationale. For trademarks being used to represent companies and the like, this is usually presumed to be ok without much question, though there are several facets regarding historical logos and the like that we consider. Again, this is not to dissaude you from using logos, just that we need to mark them non-free if they are not clearly in the public domain (due to age or simply being uncopyrightable). --MASEM (t) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Do you feel the license {{PD-USGov}}, which states "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." is appropriate and applies to this case? --Svgalbertian (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • A more appropriate wording would be "This work is provided by the owner of the copyright and trademark interest to the public for limited purpose of determining and notifying of federal ownership rights of goods and services associated with a registered U.S. trademark bearing this image. This mark should be used consistently with the spirit of its goal of helping to identify the source of goods and services used in commerce by the owner of this registered trademark, and it should be published with a corresponding link to a federal U.S. trademark associated with its image." Can we create a new wording for future marks that are similarly situated? I dont know how to do this, but if you can help, that would be great. --Rabhyanker (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • This is the problem - free content on WP cannot be burdened by reuse clauses because we want people to use and reuse what we provide. This is in immediate conflict with "for limited purpose of determining and notifying..." because while we on Wikipedia can control how the image is used, we cannot control its use by reusers. Again, we're not saying that these logos are a problem because of trademark law - that's what BQZip pointed to above - but for those where there are copyrights, we have to treat them as non-free and thus mark them appropriately. The US gov't does not own the copyrights on the images; their republishing of them is a necessary requirement for registering for the trademark but does not suddenly remove copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Yes, you are right Masem. I understand now. I will mark any future logo trademarks that I find that have enough artistic form to warrant separate copyright interest in a similar manner as being 'non-free' images. --Rabhyanker (t) 07:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Logos

Hi. I have removed the section that you added to this article for the time being- if you have concerns about the current wording of the guideline, or feel there are issues that should be added, you are welcome to discuss them on the talk page, but adding discussions such as that to the guideline itself is not the usual practice. I am not necessarily disputing anything you wrote in doing this. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:HP-original-logo1954-trademarkia.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HP-original-logo1954-trademarkia.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Svgalbertian (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Originalnikeswoosh-trademarkia-trademark-1972.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Originalnikeswoosh-trademarkia-trademark-1972.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Svgalbertian (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of ISlate

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is ISlate. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISlate (2nd Nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iPad

Español: Hola Rabhyanker, me llamo la atencion que fueras tu el creador del articulo iPad, me podrias avisar a mi pagina de discusion (talk) cuando creas un articulo nuevo sobre informatica, seria interesante para crearlo en la Wikipedia en español. Thank You. --Saludos Globalphilosophy (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new content for Apple Inc

Hey you added quite a lot of new content to the Apple article, which appeared to be mostly unsourced and some of it didn't really seem relevant. Can you discuss it on the talk page first? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Original Kleenex-mark1925-trademarkia.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Original Kleenex-mark1925-trademarkia.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RonaldMcDonald-trademarkia-originaltrademark1967.jpg

just wanted to let you know that File:RonaldMcDonald-trademarkia-originaltrademark1967.jpg has Ben coped to a square photo, removing extra blank space and successfully moved to the commons, if toy have any questions please do not hesitate co contact me. Thank you Koman90 (talk), A+ (Verify)

Conflict of interest

Hi, another editor has posted to the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding your editing. The discussion can be found here, it would helpful if you could discuss the problems. Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's Raj Abhyanker. I have made it clear that I am a co-founder of Trademarkia, that I am an IP attorney, and that my law firm supports the site on legal issues. Trademarkia offers unique historical information that adds value to existing Wikipedia pages. I make my affiliation with the site open and transparent. Why then should I be estopped from improving Wikipedia? Sure, it benefits Trademarkia, and I have a personal interest in its success. However, my edits also benefit Wikipedia and I have a personal interest in making Wikipedia a success. I have invested lots of time in reading this site, and I find its inaccuracies related to trademark and brand information quite appauling. Trademarkia uniquely helps to solve a gapping hole in the accuracy of information posted on Wikipedia. As such, I should be allowed to continue improving postings on Wikipedia. I have fixed and edited dozens of articles that have simply been wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete when it comes to historical brand information. You can audit my record over the past few months, its value stands for itself. Rabhyanker (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-72279672.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rabhyanker&oldid=347059783"