User talk:David Thorp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion of The Chartered Institute of Marketing[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on The Chartered Institute of Marketing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Userpage[edit]

Hi. The infromation on your user page appears to be a copy of material from and should be removed to comply with copyrights. Can you please replace the material with something appropriate that complies with WP:USER? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Your Userpage[edit]

Hello. Apologies, I didn't realise I was not complying with the copyrights for this page. I own the copyright for the content on so will amend it accordingly to include the reference to the GNU Free Documentation License tomorrow. Hopefully the page can then be reinstated. Thanks. (David Thorp (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

You may want to review WP:USER, and in particular, point 6 of WP:UP#NOT, as a copy of an orgnisation's website really seems to be advertising oriented, and not compatible with the goal of developing an encyclopdia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. The text appeared first on Wikipedia as it is factual, easy to read and concise, and for these reasons I then used it on our organisation's website. The first line of text on Wikipedia has been changed to include the word 'claims to be' which is fair. If you search under The Chartered Institute of Marketing or CIM there are many references to us from individuals and organisations, so we wanted to provide Wikipedia users with some basic facts about who we are. The reference to the GNU Free Documentation License on the About Us page will appear later today, but please let me know if the page is still in breach of Wikipedia's rules. Thanks. (David Thorp (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Chartered Institute of Marketing[edit]

Chartered Institute of Marketing seems to be a notable company, and probably warrants an article here on Wikipedia. One is discouraged from writing about one's own company (or one's self, band, etc.), but since I will monitor your edits and since you realize that articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, it shouldn't be much of a problem. Here's a valuable tip: cite your sources, making sure they are reliable. Generally, the more sources, the better the article will be -- and since the facts will be verifiable, notability will be established and the article won't be a target for being deleted. A good way to gather reliable sources is by searching Google News for the company name. I may not help the article directly but I would be more than happy to offer further guidance. Just shoot me another message. ~EdGl 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I've put together some content which explains our history, our activities, such as membership grades and qualification levels, and a timeline of notable events in our past. I've got sources for these but I'm afraid they are not third party - they are all our own publications. Will this be acceptable? They can be checked against our own web site. We do appear regularly in our industry press Marketingmagazine, Marketing Week, but this tends to be on specific, current issues, rather than our past. Your guidance on this would be much appreciated. David Thorp (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are plenty of third-party sources that have written on your company; you really should use those instead. ~EdGl 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've made a change to the page, expanding the history section, citing a third-party source [1] but I appear to have made a citation error. I'm not sure where I went wrong - I followed the instructions under Citing Sources - Footnote summary. Any help or guidance much appreciated. David Thorp (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)