User talk:AdamC26

Hello, AdamC26, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

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:

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

I wouldn’t get too busy with the Lancashire One links just yet. Your article has some pretty big issues and is at risk of being deleted, because:

A> It doesn’t establish notability (See: WP:NOTE)
B> It doesn’t contain enough references (See: WP:REF)
C> It could be construed as advertising (See: WP:ADVERTISING)

Obviously if it gets removed all of your links will be pointless and will also have to go. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Trappedinburnley Thanks for the advice on the Lancashire One article. Let me address yours (and User:Simple Bob's) concerns head on. As the block that has been put on me will not allow me to make my case on the AfD page for Lancashire One.

A> Notability is something that is being worked on as we speak, but I could safely say the amount of viewers the channel gains (which, as with all channels of this type, is not available for public availability and it is also an ever changing number (as I say, it is constantly increasing), then the information would be at a danger of being left as false and out of date if left up to other users.)
B> As with what I said in A, no external references are available in terms of public viewing figures but references that talk about the work we are doing is something that I plan to add very soon (if given the chance).
C> It could be construed as advertising, but I hope not. I, and the rest of the company, are journalists, not salesmen or advertisers. The Lancashire public is becoming more and more aware of our channel - and I hope you are too. I see you live in Burnley where I used to work - and it's an area that we are beginning to cover extensively as the people who watch in that area are higher than anywhere else in the county.

Also, I feel that it's a touch harsh that I'm not allowed to have a say in the AfD of the Lancashire One page and respond to some of the comments made about the page, the company and myself which is why I'm resorted to posting here. I am not a robot, a spammer or an idiot. In the land of Wikipedia where everybody has a say, I feel like I'm not being given mine.

I agree that blocking your username was probably a little over the top, it certainly wouldn’t be my chosen method of discussing the problem. Sadly I think the article is doomed for the time being. Currently there just doesn’t seem to be enough independent source material available on the web. Unfortunately recently launched small companies are very unlikely to meet the notability criteria for new articles. You really need some coverage in the local press and maybe something on the UCLAN website at least. I have thought of a more acceptable way of utilizing this site to increase awareness of the channel, examples can be found at Pendle Hippodrome Theatre and Witton Country Park.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, and for backing me up somewhat. As for external references, it is in somewhat of a Catch 22 scenario as, naturally, no other media provider wants to be directing their audience away from them and onto us. In terms of the Pendle Hippodrome and Witton Park, we have covered stories about both of these places in the last week and I could link to these on the subjet's own page rather than ours, although I fear somewhat that I am not allowed to do anything Lancashire One related incase that results in another immediate blocking for me. Adam lancashireone (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to believe that the Evening Post or Telegraph, wouldn’t run a story on the Channel, see LEP. Also what about specialist media publications, I’m not sure what’s out there, but there must be something? I find it odd that as the Media Factory is a business incubation space, it doesn’t seem to be offering any publicity as part of the deal.

The conflict of interest rules on Wikipedia are not as clear-cut as some would have you believe, see: WP:COI. Basically you shouldn’t hide your relationship to Lancashire One, and you will be judged (sometimes harshly) on your contributions, not who you work for. So as long as you are genuinely improving the neutral and balanced coverage of a subject, you should be OK. I probably would do some stuff not directly related to show good faith, how about UCLAN for a start? I’ve been meaning to add a campus section since they opened in Burnley, but can’t bothered to list all the other stuff that is required to do the job properly. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our problem with local rags such as the LEP, Blackpool Gazette etc is that they are averse to us as we are competition for the TV service that they are trying to branch out to provide (despite it, in my opinion, being of a very poor quality). For example the media service referenced in that article is no threat to the paper's figures as it doesn't run in competition to it like we do. We are working with UCLan to get extra publicity for it but it is something that is proving a slow process to organise and come to fruition. Once these are sorted out we will be able to provide more external references but at the moment it is slim pickings in that department. As for User: Preston Lad, I couldn't tell youwho it is. I can vouch that it's definitely not sock puppetry however. Between you and me, if I was from Preston, I wouldn't admit it! AdamC26 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, I can see where said user came from as I asked some of our Facebook and Twitter followers to try and back us up by visiting the page and adding to it (as I felt that I may not be able to) and I presume that this somebody who has chosen to back our corner because of that. AdamC26 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to offer you some hope with the fact that nobody was voting in the AfD, but I see that isn’t the case anymore. References are paramount here, there is no way round that. On the bright side, you can keep the copy in your user space, and add to it as refs become available. Once you’ve got them, you can move it back into the main space and hope! In the meantime, linking directly to your footage from the appropriate articles is about as far as you can go.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Lancaster, Lancashire, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Please stop spamming wikipedia. As someone linked to the subject you have a clear conflict of interest Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Spam/Advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lancashire One for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lancashire One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancashire One until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AdamC26 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear User:Simple Bob and User:Fastily I have been trying to contact you both for a good while to try and talk to you about the warning I was given before you actually went ahead with any premature blocking. Alas, I was not able to do this in time before you made your move but I wanted to explain my movements of the last hour. Yes, I do have an interest in what I was writing about. My username, which was derived from my email address, is indeed that of the Lancashire One that I was writing about. I thought it would be a good way to get me to grips with the formatting and intricacies of Wikipedia, a bit like that see. I was then going to move onto to producing a lot of differently directed articles and was going to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner. I recognise now that my method of learning the ropes wasn't ideal and can say that should any block be lifted then that is was I plan to do.

Accept reason:

If you have no connection to Lancashire One, then to show that, you must pledge to avoid editing articles related to the network or organization, especially anything promotional. WP:ORGNAME states that you can't have a username intended to represent or promote an organization. You have pledged to avoid topics related to Lancashire One and to broaden your editing scope, so I will unblock you. If you fail to do that you will likely be reblocked. -- Atama頭 20:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]