User talk:Tdenusa

First edits

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Digital Entertainment Network, you will be blocked from editing. --Mhking (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Then -- if a Wikipedia article for your company is warranted -- it would be more properly placed under The Digital Entertainment Network. Digital Entertainment Network is the old company (which has been reborn under new ownership) that created the DEN.Net portal. That is what that particular article is geared toward. In the same vein, any entry for your company would come under scrutiny of Wikipedia notability guidelines, and if deemed mere promotion, would likely be removed. In any event, the information you've placed in the present Digital Entertainment Network article in the recent past can be considered vandalism, and is subject to being removed. --Mhking (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Digital Entertainment Network. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. — Satori Son 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you stated, "I am going to repost the information after the 24 hour waiting period." Please re-read the above notice carefully, which clearly states, "Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule."

In addition, you expressed a desire to "escalate the matter within Wikipedia". This matter has already been brought to the attention of site administrators, myself included, via our noticeboards. That is how I became aware of this issue.

If you continue to edit disruptively, I will block this account from editing Wikipedia. Please reconsider your actions, and instead participate in the discussion at Talk:Digital Entertainment Network#The Digital Entertainment Network. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Entertainment Network is now being discussed at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello Tdenusa. Your name has been mentioned in this discussion, and you are welcome to participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the discussion there I have created The Digital Entertainment Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with a disambiguation note from Digital Entertainment Network pointing to it (and vice versa). Note we do have an editing stance on conflict of interest - see WP:COI: Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace. Regards--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 23:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw your repsonse on the noticeboard - thanks for that. Under our policies when a citation is requested or a fact challenged, the onus is not on the challenging editor to find the citation. See for example Wikipedia:Verifiability: Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. As an Australian I am not familiar with US copyright law as it pertains tot he use of the definite article or on where documentation for trademarks might be kept. Thus even with goodwill to search for citations myself (and I often do), I did not succeeed in this case. Regards--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 05:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Service mark 2,347,797 was registered on May 2, 2000

Hello Tdenusa. The info you provided was helpful in finding the USPTO registration for the service mark that belongs to TDEN USA. However its grant date of 5/22/00 seems to be later than the bankruptcy of the original DEN, which is the only company covered in our Digital Entertainment Network article. Can you add your comment either here or at [1]? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Digital Entertainment Network

Hi - the discussion about deleting the article was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Digital Entertainment Network. My views did not hold sway. The correct escalation process is through Wikipedia:Deletion review. You will need to address the perception that your company does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Regards--Matilda ^talk 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]