User talk:Flowanda

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Easterns Automotive Group 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/Easterns Automotive Group (2nd nomination) 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 high-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.Boogerpatrol (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need something else to level your head, because you are obviously intoxicated by the power of censorship in your little volunteer job for Jimmy Wales. I suggest spending time helping patients in the cafeteria of your local elder care facility. That ought to improve your perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.54.232 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Flowanda is a little too self impressed and should really go back to Wiki Editor 101 before working on additional pages. Some restraint would be great. Also, the righteousness is not needed. But mostly it's just the bad judgment that annoys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.88.54 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not avertising anything, just adding additional content.. what is wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.36.100 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my edit to the Loss Mitigation article in which I contributed a subject of Loan Modification Consultants. Why?

Also, I have sited a website in the benefits section of the article which describes the benefits of loss mitigation. I believe this fits with the rules of Wikipedia.

GO AWAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistro-sidecar (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh saviour of Wikipedia, please educate yourself about capital markets and the players in the current "subprime mortgage crisis." Some of your edits are nonsensical and undermine the intergrity of the article. If you do not kno the difference between a broker, correspondent lender and lender, then you may want to only edit articles within your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.153.157 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See how easy that was? Flowanda | Talk 07:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey genious, stop deleting relevant edits. If you want to delete, discuss on the talk page first. Explain and SUPPORT the basis. Unless you are an intellectual property attorney, and I am, it better be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.174.79.239 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Loser, you never justified. The same content copied still has the same fair use purpose idiot. You must live with your parents ... or work at a Barnes & Noble.[reply]

Please see the disagreements at American Freedom Mortgage, Inc. and Talk:American Freedom Mortgage, Inc. to see why this editor is disgruntled with my edits. Flowanda | Talk 23:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, I was wondering if you could help me with an entry on DJ Warrior, some losers are trying to shut it down because they are complete nerds and wont even look at my refrences, I am assuming you are much more well versed with wikipedia than me, and if you could help that would be great, Thanks,--Journaldiction (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, please try to be more careful with your edits. Old Money New South is not a self-published book, which is explained on the book's website. Also, if you're going to remove a citation, there may be reason to consider removing the content which required the citation. It's best to bring it up on the article's talk page. Qmax 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qmax, thanks for the welcome and comments. Although I may be new to wikipedia, I consider myself a careful editor who learns and follows style guidelines, so I made edits only after reviewing the appropriate guidelines and doing research in and outside wikipedia.

As you know, the book's website alone is not independent verification of its own authenticity, and the only publisher listed/uncovered with additional research is the author and an organization listed in his name. Regardless, I removed the link because there was no connection between the book and this article; the link you added back contains content with no reference to this article or person.

The other link was removed because it also did not meet the external link guideliness that limit links to only those blogs/personal websites considered authoritative. Although listed as a "collection of essays criticial of the mayor", the web page consisted of entries and comments structured in a blog format by date using blogging software on a website of blogs that included "blogs" in its URL. The blog's writer is unidentified. Whether a blog or personal page, this website doesn't meet the wiki external link guidelines, so I removed the link, noting why in my edits.

I can post all the references I used for these edits, of course, or discuss the edits I've made elsewhere based on wiki sources I used as reference.Flowanda 03:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an external link from University of Phoenix with an edit summary indicating there was or is going to be discussion on the Talk page. However, I don't see that discussion. Can you please participate in the discussion about the article if you are going to leave edit summaries indicating as such? Thanks! --ElKevbo 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can find time to take a picture this week. The difficulty with Signal Mountain is that it is a ridge (Walden Ridge, to be exact) and there is no "peak" to it. I'll see if I can find a nice angle. I'm thinking of a ridge off Cherokee that would provide a decent image of both that and a better one of downtown. As far as the article, if you're looking to start one on the history of Signal Mountain apart from the town, I suggest calling it History of Signal Mountain. No big deal there. Happy editing to you, contact me any time. Keegan^talk 18:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the linked image is from Edward's Point on Signal, the mountain you see in the image is Raccoon Mountain. Keegan^talk 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short squatty one of the bunch, that's for sure...I have always suspected a conspiracy behind the bulldozing of Cameron Hill...those insecure Lookites couldn't stand any competition. Maybe the Conner Tollhouse or the W-Road might be other photo options, but Brady Point still seems to be the standard Signal "view"...along with the space house, of course. You might also try Stringer's Ridge or a safe pulloff along Corridor J (or the road up behind Red Bank School on Mtn Creek) that frames Signal against Raccoon. Flowanda 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the pictures:

The Signal image is from the road running up by Red Bank Elementary, as you suggested. I also took a couple images from Komatsu and Suck Creek Road, but this was the best profile.

The Chattanooga image is from Stringer's Ridge. The one I uploaded is from Whitehall Road, but I also took a lesser quality image from Stringer's Ridge Road. I have included the Signal picture to the article. As well, I moved the previous Signal Mountain page to Signal Mountain (disambiguation). Signal Mountain will redirect there until a comprehensive article on Signal is created in its place. Happy editing to you! Keegan^talk 01:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you were educated you would recognize that you are not qualified to review legal/financial pages. Such matters are supported by public records. Nicholas.dk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.79.236 (talk).

Hi Flowanda, thanks for your message. Your help is very welcome and most appreciated. I left you a note with some details about what was done already and what issues remained and need cleanup at my talk page. Welcome on board :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda - You undid a deletion I made to the Covenant College entry because you claimed it was done without discussion. If you take a look at the discussion page, you will note that the matter was discussed extensively, and after waiting a couple of months out of fairness, I made the revision that I proposed back in April. Hedgehogfox 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WHO HERE HAS A PROBLEM? just because there is no "wiki" entry? The last person to delete what I entered suggested I source them. well, that's what I'm doing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymichaelcleary (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I don't know how to do this "discussion"... is this how it is done? I've just added prominent people, and Jana Werson, and I changed it from "notable" to prestigious alumni... I'm doing good faith edits and making notations as I am able... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymichaelcleary (talk • contribs) 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda - destinations2discover.com is producing websites for Conventions and Visitor Bureaus. So they are indeed official websites (paid from CVB's (bedtaxes)) Please do not remove again. Thanks! Worldtraveler1 13:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err no, good job on removing the links. Regardless if they are official or not it is still advertising. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda. I saw that you have been involved in some article(s) that User:65.15.77.18 has edited (i.e. American Freedom Mortgage, Inc.). It seem that he may have added a significant amount cut and pasted from other copyright sources, if you get a chance to check any that would be great. Rich Farmbrough, 08:35 11 August 2007 (GMT).

I'm assuming this is based on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:65.15.77.18. Flowanda | Talk 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Rob? >Radiant< 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. >Radiant< 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda. Thanks for the heads up - I didn't look back at the other edits that IP had made as the link looked reasonable. I'll keep a sharper eye out in the future. -- SiobhanHansa 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda, I was a bit surprised about your comments at the COI Noticeboard. It would be nice, if you could tell me why you believe that I am trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits I don't like. If you read this, you might change your opinion about me. I hope.

1. Quote: "trying to beat a fellow editor to death over a minor article" this was not my choice, somebody else made that choice. I don't let anybody get away who is doing something wrong, only because that would be more convenient. Others contacted me outside of Wikipedia and stated their opinion about the behavior of this editor who "I am trying to beat to death". It seems that he did things the way we did in case of the eComXpo article before that, but nobody spend the time to go up against him to prevent this behavior to be rewarded. You can check out stuff by yourself. I already did the leg work which took me quite some time, but I felt like somebody had to do it. See this. Everything put in chronological order and proven with links to diffs. You can verify everything yourself.
2. Regarding the Affiliate marketing article do you honestly belief that simply deleting 75% of the articles content would make it a better article? That was your proposal, if you support the actions that were taken by a single editor against the opinion of dozens of others in the case of the eComXpo article. On top of that, do it after a failed AfD attempt where only you and one other editor pledge for the deletion while 8 others disagree and proof your arguments being invalid and while the deletion review that you started yourself , acknowledges the decision of the AfD. Only you and the other editor are for overthrowing the decision, while 9 other editors who were not even part of the AfD reject your attempt (with exception of one, the editor who proposed the AfD and now votes to keep it after the debate). Ignore any editors who wanted to help to improve the article after seeing the DRV discussion and make them mad. Ignore their attempts to come to a consensus first and then seek for ratification of your edits and actions afterwards, while pretending to be the nice and fair editor who only wants to help to make Wikipedia a better place. Request mediation where you pull your friend in and then have your friend not accept the mediation request. Hey you tried, didn't you. To prevent other editors to stop you from what you are doing, especially the one that argues the strongest against you, accuse them of something strong enough to discount any of their edits. Sounds bad, doesn't it? I would be surprised if you do anything else but object and state that you would never do something like this. I would believe you.
3. I don't know, but I am not the person who lets that happen and let you get away with it. I stated multiple times that I don't want to spend time on this and made repeatedly attempts to end this. I offered a compromise, a real compromise, but it was rejected. This is the short version of the story. If you interpret the events differently, please let me know. This can not be done in 5 minutes and the one thing somebody is counting on and willing to create as much noise and distractions as possible to keep it that way. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your comment, "I like my ancient 301s, but I don't think they are contributing to world peace." How do you know these are not contributing to world peace? What's your source for this unjustified attack on Bose's contribution to humanity?

More seriously, thanks for the voice of balance. Mattnad 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

omibose, you're right. Since I cannot find a reliable source to reference the above statement, we must all then accept that my 301s are, indeed, responsible for world peace. Well, that changes everything, especially my to-do list for next week. Thanks for the heads up. Flowanda | Talk 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To see what we're dealing with with UKPhoenix79, here's an exchange regarding your edit to the article, after he changed it: User_talk:UKPhoenix79#Bose. Read down a little. Mattnad 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we were all right. And '79 was the year my speakers were born. Flowanda | Talk 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with my changes to payday loan? The ones that you reverted are

• the addition of an (correct, verifiable) reference, to replace a ^{[citation needed]};
• a minor change in wording
• the addition of a paragraph break, with no change to the content; and
• a fix to a misformatted reference.

I do not see how these would be controversial. Please let me know. 24.91.134.90 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that you also reverted a paragraph of text that I wrote. Please let me know if you see any problem, or mark unverified assertions, rather than just reverting. Thanks. 24.91.134.90 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's talk page. Flowanda | Talk 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The COI thread is the oldest thing on ANI and really deserved to be archived, so I'll answer your question here. I'd rather know what Duremine offers and I'd rather the offer were posted in a place where uninvolved volunteers can watchlist and perform basic management. When the eBay thing first came up for discussion at David Gerard's blog and the Wiki.en mailing list a few weeks ago it turned out to be quite difficult to contact the - erm - "vendor." If it helps any to say this, I also write a column for the online publication Search Engine Land where I inform the business community about how to work within Wikipedia's site standards. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war{{{ Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. -->}#if:Covenant College| according to the reverts you have made on Covenant College}}. 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 for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. -->}#if:|{{{2}}}|}} --ElKevbo 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into to it soon. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the tidy up on the SSC page. One question, what was the reason for removing the item about the Simon PG ownership of the buildings, as well as dropping the link to the company's WP entry? JXM 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the first tagged internal link to the first graph and only removed the tags around the second reference since the article was short. Does that work? I had removed a couple of paragraphs of brochure copy and artists' references since they were all (except for one, and it was incorrect) redlinked. I also didn't do a search on the artists, so it might be a better idea to move that graph to the talk page so if future articles are added, the info can be easily moved back into the main page...what do you think? Flowanda | Talk 18:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. NM - my bad. I missed the fact that y'd relocated the link to Simon PG to the first paragraph. Removing the rest of the material is fine with me. JXM 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am eagerly awaiting your explanation about how the sentence, which has a source which is still active, is inaccurate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that your sentence is both a bit confusing? "Free shipping for a fee"->do you say it like that in English? I'm not native speaker, but it sure sounds odd to me. If there's a fee you can't call it free. Additionally, I agree that not all this small info about the fees is needed, but informationen shared by all Prime services should still be in there. Just to give some examples:

• Priority 1-day-shipping to most parts of the country
• Being able to share Prime with members of the own household

Do you agree that this information is relevant enough to be on Wikipedia, or do you think otherwise and why? --Natanji 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda went overboard on both the edit summary AND the edits...thanks for the nice note. :) I was trying to follow guidelines about including pricing details from WP:NOT#DIR and keep to a general description of the program overall. I do think my edits make sense -- customers do pay a yearly fee for a program that revolves around free or discounted shipping on individual orders. The fact that everyone in a single household can take advantage of it comes across as marketing speak instead of a true benefit...don't you think everyone is going to take advantage of it anyway? And really, every single marketing program and service a company offers doesn't deserve mention, much less an entire section, but Amazon has somehow been able to spin dozens of articles about every single aspect of its company, no matter how notable or interesting. Flowanda | Talk 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. I still thought the part about priority shipping is relevant enough for Wikipedia, because that's the main reason why people are gonna get Prime. Why? Well, I never ever payed any shipment cost on Amazon yet even like this because it was always over €20 or just books, which are free shipping anyway. I hope like this it's okay. Any objections? --Natanji 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Durova, award The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar to Flowanda for proactive work to stop misuse of Wikipedia for commercial purposes before it happens. DurovaCharge! 10:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the references to Amazon book and the user page of the original author of the disputed content? Nshuks7 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks like original research to me, and we don't cite Wikipedia articles. We also have to keep WP:BLP in mind. I've started a discussion on the article talk page. Flowanda | Talk 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite you to spot places in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_schema article that could be improved.Nshuks7 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to help finish editing the refs on that page. I need a hand with something else as well, if you can. Pax Arcane (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just there looking at recent edits. The edits I made this weekend focused just on moving external links from the main article into citations in the reference section. Although I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article (and what I read from the external link/citations), I still feel I know very little about Erhard from the Wikipedia article itself. The entire first paragraph, for instance, is totally incomprehensible to me -- it just seems like a mess of jargon/corporate/legal/creepy cult speak, which might be fine for the corporate/legal/baptized types, but does nothing for the rest of us. Flowanda | Talk 06:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda, Can you tell me how you traced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.183.197.163 to Dezenhall Resources (17 May 2007)? I am doing research on anon. IPs, but sites such as ARIN do not give me information this specific. Are you using an admin tool? Is there any way for me to use this tool? Thanks,Cyrusc (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I got it figured out... Please disregard the above. Cyrusc (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping improve the Prentice article. I have restored your edits and added a couple of citations. Sufferingfools had removed your edit and left what I think is misleading information (perhaps inadvertently). Keep up the good work! Benzocane (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda, I saw that you removed eHow's Writer Compensation Program reference from the eHow Article Page. I'm actually a rep from eHow, and I was wondering if it was okay to make at least two references in the article about the Writer Compensation Program? One, in the body of the text and the other in the external link portion of the page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisitingnixon (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Flowanda for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have a knack of writing articles on music, I can only butcher them :-). Of people who might have interest in topic, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop/Members. Oh, wait, you know the wikiproject exists :-) Since you are talking to me, I guess it is rather inactive. Sigh... I wish I could help. `'Míkka>t 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't think about going to the project page...duh! Thanks anyway for your help; I think I will just add sources to the article for other editors to use as references and notability checks. Flowanda | Talk 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda - great work spotting the Kellen link and cleaning out those pages! I haven't done much hunting for Kellen stuff lately, I guess I need to up my game. They're definitely a curse on Wikipedia, the more we can do to eradicate that kind of POV the better. I'll try and take a good hard look at some point in the next few days and see what I can find. Thanks for the heads up. -- SiobhanHansa 23:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the "driving links" spam. I picked it up via a Commons user who was uploading images there for spamming use & followed the trail. I've blocked one IP & a user and given an "im" warning to another. The help is appreciated, --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article to its pre-copyvio state; my apologies. Marasmusine (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I can't believe you didn't believe me. look up in google.com right now "Papoose Fat Joe". That's how I found those 3 references about the whole story that I just added. There are also many more too though. I am not trying to be rude, but I do not add fake references to pages. Thanks for watching Fat Joe's page, though! Y5nthon5a (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was teasing...see your talk page. Flowanda | Talk 06:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, okay man. It's all good. Yeah, and if you want to edit the Fat Joe/ Papoose feud part of Joey Crack's page to make it shorter and whatever else, you can. I was just too lazy to do so. I wrote all that up and then I thought it was too long, but was too lazy to go back and change things up. Yeah, I know about how most things work on this site; i've been on here for over a year. So yeah, you a fan of Fat Joe, or are you just watching his page?Y5nthon5a (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, she's in the news almost constantly, being the leader of Australia's peak union body. e.g. [1] Orderinchaos 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers! MusiCitizen (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see that you have been busy editing the Still Pending article. You have really cut out a lot of the article without any discussion of your proposed changes on the article's talk page. You may have noticed that this article has survived a few deletion reviews and AfDs in its original state. Why did you find it necessary to remove so much of the content? The article was well sourced (hence the survival of the deletion reviews). Please review the Wiki policy and guidelines for careful and properly discussed editing of articles. I have reinstated the article back to it's prior version. If you wish to discuss your proposed changes, please use the talk page. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki. PeachWriter66 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm from the french version of WP (please have a look on my user page). I am really sorry about the sources and edits problems on this page. Despite of long researchs on this musician, I was unable to found better sources about him. I understand that you would like better source than the myspace, but why can't we do with these for the moment? A weak source is better than no source at all. Yours faithfully (I am not sure wether it is the right terms to use...),Dodoïste (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I couldn't find any current sources either, but I'm sure that will change. I think it's unsourced or poorly sourced content that hurts article more by making them easier targets for deletion. But that's just my opinion. :) Add back what you think is appropriate; I won't make anymore edits unless you want some help with future sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jack O'Brien (disambiguation), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
--Jerzy•t 20:33 & 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You responded to the above with

Based on the vandalism template you placed on my talk page and your comments on User Talk:MusiCitizen#Dab "Jack O'Brien", are you saying that I vandalized pages or tried to purposely mislead other editors as to what I was doing?
--Flowanda | Talk 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no, neither; nor have i believed either of those to be true.
Before i embark on the long answer, i invite you to indicate whether

1. you grasp that you may not remove an existing article from a Dab page, based on your considering its subject non-notable
2. you can explain your removing the only link main-namespace to Jack O'Brien (disambiguation) from its logical place on Jack O'Brien

--Jerzy•t 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand now; however, placing a level 1 vandal warning on my talk page and belittling the editor who helped fix my errors was overly harsh and unhelpful. Flowanda | Talk 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're of course entitled to your opinions (even when they are about the relationship between two of your colleagues), and under no obligation to forgo expressing them, even by asserting them as facts. But do not expect my thanks for your doing so. And for the record, your insistence on focusing on the contexts where you have previously seen the words i said, rather than on the words or on the substance of the situation that elicited them, leaves me with the opinion that you do not in fact understand, and deepens my concern about the suggestions of reckless editing on your part, which led me to communicate with you in the first place.
--Jerzy•t 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not think we will be able to communicate in an effective way; is there another editor with whom I can discuss this with so I can learn from these mistakes? Flowanda | Talk 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not give up so easily! You said you understood, and i may have been too terse, and harsh after you accused me of harshness, in saying so little beyond "not in fact understand". My point was that we still differed about how significant and avoidable your lapses were, but i'm encouraged by your interest in learning more about that, or at least other aspects of the situation. (And besides, i don't really know who to send you to!)

BTW, i finally accomplished what was, for me, a decoding of

working on removing non-notable name from main wikipedia direct

namely

a step toward getting this bio, too obscure to bear the "primary" rather than a Dab-suffixed title among titles beginning with that name, into a new context that reflects that fact.

(Not that you should be expected to say that in terms that clear.)

My difficulties in arriving at that understanding may be part of what you'd value knowing about (and please note i am offering them as potential insights for you, not as evidence of blameworthiness, recklessness, or even, at the moment, seriousness of effect:

1. Experienced en:WP editors use "non-notable", AFAIK, only to mean, regarding a topic, "below the limit of significance needed to justify WP having an article on the topic". Non-notability is something determined on WP:AfD, except in the sense that, within a few classes of topics (usually bands, companies, and individual people), admins applying WP:CSD#A7 implicitly have to rely on a sense of what kinds of claim about a topic constitute claims of notability.
2. The principal use of "main" in en:WP is in "main namespace", meaning the sum total of pages titles intended for articles, lists, redirects, and Dabs, i.e., essentially everything that might be necessary for your browser to get pointed at in the use (without editing) of this encyclopedia.
3. "Directory" in its computing senses is a term that the (software) developers of MediaWiki (the software engine underlying WP) probably deal with regularly, but editors as editors have no use for, let alone any need to abbreviate it. (And i can't imagine that there is a software-directory boundary that separates between suffixed and unsuffixed titles.)
4. I was also trying to read that summary in light of the one i had noticed before it, "removed non-notable name", which, in the context of our common usage of "non-notable" and your removal of the Dab entry for the editor, seemed to imply you anticipated deletion of the bio article you had (illogically) taken the trouble to edit (with the edit-summary i was trying to interpret).

Having finally succeeded, i think, in understanding both of those edits, let me state my new best understanding of what your intentions were:

You wanted the Dab to be titled "Jack O'Brien" and the editor to bear a suffixed version of that title; you set out toward that pretty much by undoing what had previously been done to put him where you found him, intending to then put it back as you (and i) believe it should have been in the first place: you changed the references to him and the Dab on the pages first, and discovered you couldn't, or didn't understand how to, do the moves/renames; you stopped at that point, and asked the other editor to help or finish up.

You may well have other questions in mind, which i'd be glad to try to address, but i'm going to share with you one relevant and fairly powerful insight that i reached years ago, but AFAI recall never verbalized until now. It really has to do with a hidden strength of the move tool, which could better be called the rename tool. Without being sure of the exact mechanics (e.g., what exactly happens if another editor tries to change the contents or existence of the source or destination page, if the renaming editor gets asked, and is still deciding, whether to delete the destination page), i believe the tool does roughly this: copies the contents onto the destination page, and before letting anyone make any other change the source page, replaces its contents with a redirect to the destination page. The point i consider crucial is that from any user's point of view, the contents of both pages seem to change simultaneously.

The reason i make such a point of this is that it provides the solution to the kind of problem that inherently had to exist (long enough that someone could be inconvenienced by it, whether or not the follow-up to your efforts had gone awry), in the case of Jack O'Brien: the problem of the Dab, for the others of that name, disappearing (at least temporarily) from users looking for them, and (less seriously but the other side of an analogous coin) of access to his article from the more complete Dab disappearing. Here's that solution, applied to this case:

1. "Bypass" the chains of lks thru the Hatnote Dab on "Jack O'Brien" (the ed's bio) to the Dab "Jack O'Brien (disambiguation)". You do so by changing any lk to "Jack O'Brien" (no matter where on WP it is), if its context shows that someone else than the ed'r is intended, and you change it into a lk to the corresponding article titles (whose links probably appear on the Dab page). (Any such changes are overdue, but now "bypassing" them becomes crucial.)
2. Make the move/rename of "Jack O'Brien" (the ed's bio) to Jack O'Brien (editor). As a result, the title used by articles that used to appropriately lk to "Jack O'Brien" (for the ed's bio) now lks thru "Jack O'Brien" to the same bio (at its new title Jack O'Brien (editor)), bcz the new "Jack O'Brien" page was recreated (with the content of exactly the needed Rdr) by the move tool when the bio was moved.
3. Now you move the Dab for "Jack O'Brien" from "Jack O'Brien (disambiguation)" to Jack O'Brien. Again, the page you moved from becomes a Rdr, in this case at Jack O'Brien (disambiguation) and lk'g to the new Dab at Jack O'Brien.
4. Unlike the Rdr (from step 2) that you just overwrote (in step 3, by the move), this Rdr will stay there; in fact, it will be used by, e.g. at the Dab John O'Brien, in its "See also" secn, since Jack O'Brien (disambiguation) (rather than the equivalent Jack O'Brien) is the style of lk specified at MoSDab

That's all harder to say (even after doing it over and over and over), than it is to do once you've done it a few times, close enough in time that you start to get used to the routine. And i've probably screwed up the description at some point (or rather, screwed it up at least one more time than i've fixed such screw-ups). You may have to say "Did you mean that?" -- In which case i can either correct it, or say it again in a different way, rigorously checking that my two versions of it mean the same thing.

The basic point to come away with is that when you need to shift lks, you can do it without "gaps" in which the names don't match up right, as long as you rewrite the lks after the move-tool has been used to simultaneously

1. change what title has the content (the Dab or article)
2. hide the corresponding gap (by keeping anyone from trying use the old page between putting the moved/renamed content under the new title, and putting the new Rdr to that new title in place), and
3. thus leave you with the ability to change lks, at your relative leisure, from citing one title (the new Rdr) to citing the new title (where the moved content is).

Of course what you want to know may be something else; try asking me.
--Jerzy•t 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda, I won't be able to take the picture myself anytime soon, as I have relocated away from Chattanooga (I do miss the hills...). Obviously there is no deadline, so when I get back to visit I will take said picture of Ed Johnson's tombstone. If I can't, I'll find a way to get a photo. Thanks for asking me, I'll do the best I can. Keegan^talk 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the message. It doesn't appear any infringing text was added to the American Freedom Mortgage, Inc. article. Material released by the United States government is in the public domain, so copying from a .gov site isn't a copyright infringement, although it's not a recommended practice. If those IPs have added other text that's copyrighted, just revert back to the last acceptable version of the article. We don't have to delete those versions or the article unless the copyright holders complain.

I haven't investigated the Phillip E. Hill, Sr. article; if there's no version free of copyrighted text (not from the DOJ sites, but from the other two ELs listed), add a {{db-copyvio}} tag for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. Copyright infringements that have no acceptable version in their history can and should be speedy-deleted. Thanks again for the message, and be sure to let me know if you have more questions or need help. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing my cleanup edits to the many many many southern hip-hop related articles on Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikiprojects of Hip-hop and Fact/Ref check, I get headaches just reading those horribly sourced, biased articles on the south; they're violating WP:BLP! It's really simple to deal with them. First off, everything...EVERYTHING must be properly sourced/attributed to reliable sources. What I've done is watchlisting such articles and then reverting vandalism or unconstructive edits. And of course, if you doubt a certain band's notability, see WP:MUSIC. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the knife to the corporate brochure that was the Humana article. I'm sure there are mounds of corporate brochure articles that could take a similar going-over. Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your deletion of these links from 3 articles (IRR, NPV, and DCF), as I believe the calculator the link points to adds unique value to these article. Also, it is not a "commercial" link if it has adds around the periphery (note that you let stand other, less useful links that also have ads on ther pages). Like I said in the revision log, if you find a calculator that does what this one does, then by all means please replace.

I encourage you to study the topics in these 3 articles, then give the calculator a spin for yourself. If you think it doesn't measure up, or is generally lame or not useful, then by all means nix it.

I let stand your other deletions because in those cases the tools weren't unique over all the internet (more or less). --Cheese Sandwich (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The site I added is an extra page I created with more pictures of genital warts in an effort to deal with the overwhelming demand people have for pictures like these. I also created an audio on that page to help explain them. Before you edited it out, it had been on the Wiki for over one year without any complaints and also with a relevant disclaimer. Given the fact that the page adds to the content of the article and also serves a need that so many people are desperate for good honest info about, there is no reason why the link should not be there. It has absolutely nothing to do with "nofollow" stuff or search engine stuff or whatever. No money is made as a result of people hitting that page. Therefore, I think it should be added back with the relevant disclaimer like it was before.Grinc (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been removing other links and in the last edit, you replaced another nn link with yours...neither link is now in the article. Your edit and user talk histories show several other editors have removed your website over the past few years for the same reasons I did, and the topic you added to the article's talk page did not spur discussion or action that indicated the site fit guidelines for WP:EL.

The website is an ad for an ebook; and your page's title content and links promote the sales page. There are also a number of photos already in the article itself, so I'm not sure there's added value linking to other photos.

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia guidelines about advertising and links -- WP:ADVERT and WP:COI provide information on how to appropriately edit articles and add links -- and if you think your links are appropriate, there are several ways to get input and settle any disagreements -- seeking a third opinion is a good place to start. Flowanda | Talk 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have an incredible amount of time on your hands.

Grinc (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And you will continue to waste yours if you don't stop spamming. Flowanda | Talk 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My site, www.snore-gonomics.com , is not spam. The main objective of Snore-Gonomics is to educate people about snoring and sleep apnea. Also, my site is much more informative than most of the other links on the snoring page. So can you please explain to me why you deleted my link after it had been there for over 3 months? With all due respect, I think you were wrong to delete my link and I'm putting it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowlegeProductions (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add anything to the Wikipedia policy and guidelines info that you have received from four editors -- it does not appear you have tried to familiarize yourself with any of the pages concerning external links or advertising. And you might want to compare your website disclaimer concerning fair use against Wikipedia's policy concerning copyright violation before readding your link. Flowanda | Talk 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you an authority on this subject? I have not broken any of the rules and I don't know what you're getting at about copyright violation. I have not, nor will I ever, violate any copyright laws. The fact is, my link was up for well over 3 months before you decided to "edit" it. Yes, I have adds on my site, but so do half of the links on the Snoring page and you didn't delete them. Also, did you even read the information on my site? It's the most informative and easy to read site about snoring on the whole internet. I challenge you find a better site. I want people to actually be able to learn about snoring and sleep apnea and not have to read everything in doctors terms that they don't understand. So excuse me for being just a small time website. I'm sorry that I'm not as big as WebMD or a site of that nature, but that's not a good reason to single me out and delete my site. I will continue to keep putting my link back up until someone that actually works for Wikipedia tells me that I'm breaking the rules and I doubt that will happen because I am not breaking the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowlegeProductions (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your website does not seem to meet WP:EL; I suggest that you post at WP:3O to request other opinions -- I'll be happy to help with making the request if needed. Flowanda | Talk 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now conformed the layout of the "personalities" heading of the WTVC article, to appear exactly like KCNC-TV. KCNC-TV is a television station in Denver, whose headings are much more precise and descriptive of specific news jobs within that TV station. There are other TV station articles who also use those exact same headings and listings. I trust this will suffice. Your edits are very helpful, and I appreciate the chance to be concise (sp) and present a confortable page to read. Csneed (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I need your help. I changed the WTVC Personalities/On-Air Talent section to reflect the entries in many other TV station articles, but this person: 67.161.231.25, continually insists on including the word "EMPLOYEES" after Personalities and On-Air Talent. No station lists employees, not even WRCB-TV or WDEF-TV also in Chattanooga. Please warn this person to stop editing that word in; it does not conform to Wikipedia standards. Thanks for your help. Csneed (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it later this evening...deadlines all this weekend. :) Flowanda | Talk 22:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help. I believe the person who keeps making the edits is a former employee at the TV station who is not an on-air personality, but who insists on being listed as an "employee," which does not meet Wikipedia standards. He was deleted for not being an "On-Air Personality" or a "Past Personality." Now he makes changes from different computers to change his IP address, as to be non-traceable. No other TV Station article that I have found in Wikipedia lists "employees," but this person insists on being including in the listings. I have tried to arrange the article and the subheadings to conform with other TV stations with the same format (notably KCNC-TV, Denver), but this person insists on changing the "On-Air Personalities" and "Past Personalities" back to a style that also includes "employees" that does not meet current Wikipedia standards. Any help you can provide, is greatly appreciated. I want to do this the correct way similar to most other stations.Csneed (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bothering you, but that editor keeps changing the Personalities listing back to a form that is not used in Wikipedia. I'm forced to change it back to conform to Wikipedia standards. Csneed (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the recent edits to WTVC Personalities and Past Personalities. The phantom user has now stooped to a new low, and now I am having to correct serious errors that person is making. I have tracked the offending IP addresses down to specific ones located at the TV station itself. Their changes are neither funny nor amusing. Csneed (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have not been online these past few weeks to help out, so I have posted a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#WTVC for some assistance. If the edits are getting personal, it may be best to let other editors from this project step in to help diffuse the situation and deal with these anonymous editors. Flowanda | Talk 07:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought that would be a section heading on my talk page. Anyway, I've semi-protected the above article and the Medical tourism article for 24 hours to see if the spammers will go away. Cheers, ... discospinster _talk 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZipInfo.com is not a USPS website. I use it as a simple source for a community's ZIP Code — go to http://www.zipinfo.com/cgi-local/zipsrch.exe, and you can type in a ZIP Code to get the community name, or the community name to get the ZIP Code, as well as other data. It's not at all being placed as spam, and I don't know of a better site: the USPS site doesn't allow you to link to individual ZIP Code listings, which ZipInfo.com does. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flowanda! It may seem strange, but I want to thank you for your help. Frankly speaking, in the beginning of my live in Wikipedia your meticulous remarks and edits annoyed me, but at the same time they made me be more attentive, wiki-rules became the subject of much study for me. So, you let me learn by my own mistakes and only now I can say that this training was very useful for me. This is not surprising why some wiki-users write spiteful messages for you (sometimes I wanted to do it too :), but now I understand why you received your Wiki Barnstars. You deserve them. :) --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your reverts, such as in The Economy of Hong Kong on the Talk page, rather than asking concerned editors to look at an empty page about industrial research. Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...the redlink shows two deleted articles and a link to the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial Systems Research. There are no significant search results for the publisher, books or author, and almost all the books are unavailable when checking the ISBN. From the links I removed and still left here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.web.onetel.com%2F~isr - many seem to have been added after the article was deleted, and most of the editors edited only one or two articles, adding content and then the link. To me, the books are self-published, non-notable and don't meet WP:RS, especially for some of the large blocks of content that were added. Flowanda | Talk 10:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should just go round reverting people's citations without justification. We carried a story giving public interest information about Flickr and added the a snippet to Wikipedia (seeing as it wasn't there before) and cited the sourse. We have no vested interest in online photography anymore than Fox news has, what's the difference (well apart from our site isn't covered in revenue generating PPC advertisments)? Welkin19 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Why does the Cha Cha search engine wining a search engine prize not constitute a valid entry to their page? Welkin19 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you undid external link. I'd like an explanation. I read the guidelines and don't see anything wrong with it. No commercial value, no ads, only solid information on that page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobang79 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did look all through the site related to the blog link, but neither appeared to be notable per the Wikipedia guidelines for adding external links. Blogs are included in the list of links to be avoided. I also removed a link to a site created around ebay auctions. And yes, the website was commercial; you had plenty of related products for sale. Flowanda | Talk 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda. Thanks for your oversight of the John Hardy page. I need your counsel on a fairly sensitive issue. The recent edits to the page by an anonymous user in South East Asia referring to an alleged copyright violation are problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the case in question does not involve John Hardy the individual but John Hardy International - John Hardy himself is neither attached to the company nor a litigant in the case. For that reason, if for no other, the section on alleged copyright infringement is inappropriate in a biographical page. More problematic is that the edits appear to derive from a paryy that has at least a vested interest in the case, since they refer only to a single point of view. BaliJewel, the other party, is based in South East Asia - the region from which the edits derive. I would infer from this that the edits are a clear breach of Wikipedia's conflict of interest protocols, though since the other editor will not identify him or herself I cannot state this conclusively. John Hardy International respects the integrity of the Wikipedia system and does not want to ride roughshod over Wikiquette. Neither do we believe that the public entry on the company's founder is an suitable forum on which to air legal grivances. The other party has declined an invitation to take this onto the discussion pages. This is an ongoing case (actually a countersuit) and there are real concerns that such one-sided coverage in such a respected source could prejudice the outcome. Ideally, I believe that the section should be removed in its entirety as inappropriate. However, I would like to get the opinion of a more experienced editor before taking such a conclusive step. Any guidance you can offer would be appreciated.

Many thanks

Steveb482 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs an expertise I can't provide, so I've started a conversation here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Hardy (jewelry) Flowanda | Talk 17:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Steveb482 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flowanda! I need your advice. Is it OK to create articles about ports without references? It's very difficult to find any reliable sources about them. I agree that link to the official cite should be in =external links= only, but what other links can be used to describe the Clipper Yacht Harbor for example? I want to develop this topic in wikipedia (List_of_Marinas) and I've written some articles about different ports, but I don't think that ports should be treated not as commercial firms, but as geographical units. Example: Port of Seattle --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google news search picked up several minor references, but this is a local paper with some better coverage: http://www.marinij.com/circare/html/sca_template.jsp?pageSearchKey=News&pageQuery=%22Clipper+Yacht+Harbor%22&origQuery=%22Clipper+Yacht+Harbor%22 .

The problem is probably not the external links, but confirming this website is the official or a notable website (which the cal gov site seems to confirm) and independently sourcing the content (which looks like it was taken directly from the website), especially claims regarding "biggest", "center of". Most new articles suffer from these problems and are easily fixed, especially if there expert editors who are boating enthusiasts.

But I will speak plainly -- adding a number of article entries related to the web design company's portfolio could very well end up like the links described here -- User talk:Worldtraveler1 -- even if there is an official relationship. Car import stuff too. :) Flowanda | Talk 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw my mistake and reverted all of my edit that caused damage. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda, I've just gone through most of the pages linking to David J. Hanson and attributed their funding to DISCUS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nunquam_Dormio I've done this rather mechanically but if you want to take a second look at my work, feel free. I'm off to bed! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We were leaving message for each other at the same time...thanks for all that work; all those links were overwhelming at first. Flowanda | Talk 15:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your good advice about Magic Alex and the problems that may arise. :)--andreasegde (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, you are saying that nothing published at mises.org is a reliable source? What is your basis for asserting that? DickClarkMises (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restating your conclusion does not an argument make. What is your rationale for this? What specific part of WP:RS is the basis for your assertion? DickClarkMises (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding your edit summary, the word "objective" does not appear in WP:RS. There is no such thing as objectivity. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually want you to think. Flowanda | Talk 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, I am not here for your pedagogical services. I am here to help write an encyclopedia. Please state your position clearly so we can discuss it. Hundreds of citations to materials hosted at mises.org appear throughout Wikipedia. A number of books that were originally published elsewhere are now published there, as well as original journal articles, articles for a popular audience, podcasts, video lectures, etc. To say generally that "The Mises Institute is not a reliable source" demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:RS. Please state how WP:RS can be applied to reach your conclusion or stop wasting my time. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweethart, I never said such a thing. And you are full of bullshits, no matter how many links there are. Enjoy. Flowanda | Talk 04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, I hope that you will reconsider what you are doing. If you have serious concerns, which I am trying to assume good faith about, I would like to discuss them with you. You messaged me initially, raising a question. It hardly seems unreasonable for me to request that you elaborate on your assertion rather than just accept your controversial assertion without any support. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop all the silliness here on my part. Links to your employer, former or current, do not meet WP:RS, so arguing about them here has no impact or influence on their removal elsewhere. Please take up discussion on the talk pages where the links are discussed. Flowanda | Talk 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The fact that sources I cite are hosted by an organization that employed me has no effect on whether those sources are reliable sources. I wear my affiliations on my sleeve so people can carefully consider my contributions in light of the relevant policies. I would invite community input on this issue if you are so inclined. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you last message. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget SOS Children's Villages UK. -- Etaige (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget about 300 other stubs in the children's charity category either! However, easier is to provide some evidence for the various supporters you claim for SOS USA. Most of the main ones on the SOS UK page (certainly Hawking, Mick Hucknell and Wayne Rooney) have prominent links to SOS from their own official web pages but I agree these links could be added to the article. Generally putting {{fact}}>tags on is a first step to getting someone to provide the evidence. Prior to that though there is the issue of demonstrating that the national SOS association meets WP:Notability which should not be hard with some press links. --BozMo talk 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget the other prominent supports of SOS USA who also have links to the SOS Children's Villages USA page. Too bad if press links are added people go through and take them all out. What's the point? Just leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etaige (talk • contribs) 13:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etaine, I am sorry I have been through the whole history of the SOS USA article and I cannot see any press links which have been taken out? By "press link" you just have to provide a link to, say, an article in the Washington post discussing the donation which ABB or whoever made to SOS USA. I sure there are plenty: SOS USA raises $6m a year I think which you cannot do without publicity but you need to provide it. --BozMo talk 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You guys take the cake. I hope all that elbowing has paid off in meeting your own goals...the kids all get it in the end, right? Flowanda | Talk 10:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC

Hi Flowanda. As everyone else we appreciate the help of enthusiastic volunteers but it doesn't always work perfectly. I have helped a lot of other charities set up pages on WP but it is funnythat the one closest to home appears to be the hardest to help... --BozMo talk 12:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Hucknall are you happy with [2] from his website? It does mention the history in it... however self declaarations of philanthropy aren't great. --BozMo talk 13:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, one other minor thing: I would really appreciate it if you could avoid using the word "chapter" in edit summaries about SOS National Associations. I know you are only doing it to tease but other people read edit summaries and the word gives the impression that the national associations are analogous to parts of a company with a head office in the centre whereas as I sure you have gathered SOS is a movement of independent national associations with only central service and membership functions. The central part of the organisation generates no news: it only collects it and passes it around. Funnily until recently Google News didn't even recognise the umbrella structure as a news source and whether they should list news is still a discussion. The structure of international charities is an interesting subject partly because you cannot be a charity in most countries unless you are independent (not owned by anyone) and local. I think though Save the Children USA would have a real problem with being described as the US chapter of the Save the Children alliance etc. as well. Funnily tho I think the religious NGOs would probably like it. Happy editing --BozMo talk 14:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking everyone who made a substantial contribution to H. Candace Gorman whether they think User:Butseriouslyfolks's large excision was justified by policy. Do you mind taking a look at the excision?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit may be more easily discussed and resolved on the Gorman talk page...if you start it, I'll add my 2 cents. :) Flowanda | Talk 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And you know I am hardly a POV pusher for SOS USA but actually I think this one [3] should be left pointing at the USA page. The umbrella organisation has no direct involvement in any fundraising activity in the USA (or outside Austria in fact). Any USA based event (which this obviously was) could only have been the USA national association. However I leave it to you. --BozMo talk 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)...[reply]

That might be fine as a citation about the event itself if there was some usable information in the press release that stated SOS-USA was the organizer, or had specifically partnered with Swarovski in this event. But since these edits contain the only reference to Swarovski's long partnership with SOS Children's Villages, do you seriously think that a press release with two sentences should be used as a source instead of a detailed profile page on the "main" website? Continuing to revert my edits or join the discussion on the talk page in any meaningful way just adds to the ongoing pattern of editing abuse by this and other SOS-related organizations. Flowanda | Talk 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you say "continuing to revert my edits" when I have never reverted your edits? I am surprised you take exception to curious dialog and also that in respect of all these edits you say "abuse" and that you do not WP:AGF (not of me, I am an old admin who knows the rules, but I have also never been near Swarovski). I do not find this or analogous cases (e.g. when to refer to protest as about Shell or its Nigerian subsidiary especially easy). Also I am unclear if the main article is intended to refer to all of the organisation or just the umbrella body. The status of the "main" website is also unclear in this regard. Personally I would take the national websites or the main website as reliable sources, as most have unreviewed edit rights on Alertnet so anything could equally be posted there... and Alertnet is regarded as a reliable source. However I understand that isn't really wprkable as policy. So some proper discussion would be helpful. I am not trying to criticise you just agree how to do it. --BozMo talk 06:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the history of the Swarovski article and editors involved; so do you. Please answer the question...which is the better source for the existing statement describing the history of Swarovski's partnership with SOS Children's Villages? Flowanda | Talk 06:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OIC you misunderstand me about that edit. The source bit you were completely right about. The bit I queried was "In 2007, Swarovski in partnership with SOS Children's Villages - USA during World Orphan Week, held a celebrity denim jacket auction event and donated the proceeds to orphaned children in Darfur." where you took out the "USA" part from this sentence. This charity auction (if it is notable enough to include on which I offer no opinion) was entirely "USA" and I think that wikilink should have been left pointing at the USA site. --BozMo talk 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule - yes you need to go through the warnings. If the user is hopping from IP to IP then you may find an admin who will block anyway but they tend to prefer the user has at least been told the link could be blacklisted before they blacklist. He'd added it again (this time as a ref) so I reverted and added a spam4 warning (never hurts to have more editors saying the same thing). I don't believe there's any point trotting through all the warnings when it's that blatant. If it happens again you can ask for the IP to be blocked (sometimes all it takes is one day of being unable to edit and they never try again), the article protected (hit and miss depending on the admin covering protected pages at the time), or the link to be blacklisted. Blacklisting is easiest in someways and most directly stops the problem - but it can be a strain on our resources (the meta list has got so long they've had to split the log I believe!) - so sometimes admins like to see either that other alternatives have been tried or that it impacts more than one page. Still if it's the way to stop him then make the request. I'll watchlist the article too -- SiobhanHansa 01:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [4]. -- SiobhanHansa 12:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And received [5]. If they come back next week we'll have to ask for blacklisting. There's no other good way to cope with spamming if protection doesn't work and the editor is using multiple IPs. -- SiobhanHansa 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flow, I understand you questioning our notability but was it necessary to delete the majority of our article? I posted references from Hip Hop DX and Hip Hop Game two of the biggest most notable sites in this genre.

I would prefer next time that you reach out to me prior to doing so. I would rather have you helped me re-write it to meet Wiki standards then to discredit it and remove it from existense. Overok 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my detailed edit summaries and comments on Talk:Inner Loop Records as to sourcing and notability. Myspace pages and blog entries don't meet WP:RS; rewriting is not going to help the article meet WP:N unless some much better sources can be first found. Flowanda | Talk 09:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, Peter Ishkhans, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Lunchscale ^{Talk! Contrib!} 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This speedy deletion business is quite sudden isn't it! Glad you survived it familytree101 (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, but I have not been adding the "Thisis50" links back, I have, however been adding them to a personal subpage of mine. I do this because certain links are legit, such as the 50 Cent posts, and others are until I link to the article they source. --HELLØ ŦHERE 08:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...that's why I struck out my comments. I get that there's a difference between the websites owned/maintained by the artists and the official ones run by the big record company, but there seems to be little control or editorial authority over the content at thisis50.com, which makes it very difficult to use its content for any kind of sourcing beyond 50 Cent articles. I only watch a few of these artists' pages, but I follow WP:BLP to the letter...that's why I suggested getting other editors involved. There used to be a couple of editors who knew this area; I'll dig a little and see if they're still editing. Flowanda | Talk 09:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but not every edit is correct, and just because edit history shows some difficult or controversial edits, doesn't make them immune from re-editing. This Wikipedia is supposed to be a work in progress, not a yield to the loudest or more frequent editor. Right is right, and while it may be hard for some to see, regarding this insignificant point, the issue that seems to be contentious did not seem to make it beyond Jewish blogs and two or three Jewish publications. Blogging, sockpuppeting - so to speak, using phony names and even someone's name in the blogosphere is so rampant and common, that even Flowanda (not meant as in insult, just a fact) is a pseudonym, as is the MOSMOF name and the EMETMAN and a host of others. The odd thing is that the name of the person is question is a known Wiki user who uses his name and offers his name on edits. That he made Jewish headlines on for a few days for the idiocy he is said to have done, doesn't make him famous or Wiki mention worthy. That some editors feel that it ought to be there, doesn't make it Wiki-correct either. This MOSMOF (review history there) seems to trail the user Judae1 wherever edits are made. This can also be using Wiki to make a point rather than to make a bona fide edit. 65.16.36.2 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits and edit summaries only involved the actual addition and removal of content.

You have legitimate concerns that I suggest you take up at WP:BLPN as the edits deal with living people (no matter if they have any presence on Wikipedia or not), and Wikipedia is pretty strict about sourcing per WP:BLP.

WP:OTRS is another option.

If you need help posting to these boards, let me know and I can help. Flowanda | Talk 06:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I note that you have gutted the article on stoozing because of "no legitimate news sources to back up its content." I would remind you that unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. Did you look for such sources yourself before taking your action? Also, what do you mean by "news sources" in this case (as opposed to any other kind)? Thanks. --Gilgongo (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{db-bio}} tag from this article because that tag is only for articles about "people" where notability is not asserted. If you feel that the article still does not meet WP's inclusion requirements, I suggest WP:AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I had used the WP:PROD template...would that be incorrect as well? I thought and AfD came after a prod had been removed. Flowanda | Talk 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I never added any links to Snoring; I removed one. Also, re: the brilliant green, you said "please don't remove links just to add your own." Again, what are you talking about? I never removed anything. Did you even look at the other edits of mine you reverted? I fixed a lot of horribly written sentences and you just put it all back.

I restored your edits, minus the link. Since you're editing using a shared IP, other editors may also be using the same IP to make edits or add links, so the comments weren't necessarily directed to a single editor. You might consider registering a username...it may help you since you contribute to specific interests/articles. Flowanda | Talk 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Contra Series Center link from the article, Contra series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.218.43 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't meet WP:EL-- an anonymous fansite on a freebie website. Websites included in external links sections need to provide significant resources beyond what's included in the article...usually that means well-known websites by authorities in the subject. It doesn't matter how long the link has been in the article or how many other similar links are included, each edit/addition has to stand on its own. If you think your website meets WP:EL, start a discussion at Talk:Contra (series) to make your case. The reason the word "spam" came up was not because your website was spammy, but because you kept re-adding the link. (See WP:SPAM). Flowanda |

Talk 23:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about that. You just suddenly removed my own link, then left several other links there that you would consider as "anonymous fansite". Because, Contra HQ is really nothing more than an anonymous fansite. However, that link was removed, also, but not by you.

You just don't like the answers you receive from multiple editors. Your behavior continues to show you have no interest in Wikipedia other than using it to promote your website. Flowanda | Talk 07:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flowanda. Since there is an active discussion on the Talk page about how to improve the criticism section, it would be helpful if you would participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am clueless as to the fawning behavior toward this editor and the complete lack of editing by anyone else besides myself and one other editor since Rnickel discovered the article. Flowanda | Talk 07:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flowanda, Look: I'm sorry I reverted your changes, OK? But I am baffled by your level of hostility towards me. So far, on the central question of contention between yourself and me, the following opinions have been registered:

• You (con)
• Me (pro)
• EdJohnson (pro): "I suppose it is OK to cite blogs for their opinions (rather than relying on them for facts)"
• Wikidemon (pro): "The anti-CSPI websites, promoted as they are by a notable institution, are in my opinion one of the rare instances where a primary source is self-validating"
• Charles Edward (pro): "I completely agree with wikidemon"

Now I'm not going have the hubris to sit here on the strength of all-of-three people who agree with me and say, "I'm right and you're wrong," but I will ask, could you at least tone it down and grant that I may not be coming totally out of left field? I'm not out to destroy the world, I'm not trying to get away with anything, and I'm not a spammer. Yes, we disagree about what is valid within Wikipedia's guidelines in this one case. So what? Why is that such an affront to you, to think that reasonable, well-intentioned people might disagree? In any case, it does not give you the right to talk down to me and acuse other editors of fawning over me. I was asked by EdJohnson to take a crack at cleaning up a section of an article that has been a mess for a long time, and I spent several hours and did that. Most people seem to recognize that. Rnickel (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I have it figured out now. I read the information at that link you gave me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Aug_1#About_400_links_to_the_two_sites_of_one_individual

So, this David J. Hanson is a spammer, and he likes to use sockpuppets, and you've had to spend many hours clearing out all the garbage he's dumped into Wikipedia, and so in your mind you're not being a dick to a regular person who's worked hard to improve an article, you're being a dick to David J. Hanson's latest sock puppet, and since he was a dick to you first, eh, you feel justified. All of this putting me on notice, and the mildly veiled threatening tone, and so forth... that's all intended to put him on notice that his activities will not be tolerated, etc, etc. Problem, though: I'm not a sockpuppet. I'm just a regular guy from San Diego, interested in CSPI becuase I have high cholesterol. I'm not exactly sure how to prove that I'm not a sock-puppet, but I really don't need the crap you've been dishing out to me and I'd like to find a way to make it stop. Any thoughts? Rnickel (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Focus on editing according to Wikipedia policy and let your edits show the kind of editor you are. And please take up any further discussion on the article's talk page instead of here. Flowanda | Talk 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

FYI:

• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#snore/Lazik/zit spam

Thanks for you work against spam in the snoring article!
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, as I know how you love to quote\twist policy. I would encourage you to read WP:BITE to better learn how to deal with users like Rnickel. Thank you! Charles Edward 12:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just more endless arguments? No thanks. Talk histories are not your friend in this case. Flowanda | Talk 10:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia_talk:External_links. Please join in discussion there. --Anshuk (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to put this here but I don't even know how to respond to your message on my talk page. Could you please tell an old man how? Great job you did rearranging the intro to predatory lending talk page. Thank you. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the way the talk pages work. If I'm wrong I beg your pardon. Please let me know if this is the correct way to communicate via talk pages. Thank you. Assuming it is, here goes: I tried to let you know my approval of the changes you made. I don't know if that ever reached you. It's much clearer now. Thank you for the great work. Btw I've added some comments to the section. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and no problem...I've not been around in the past week, so I'm just now seeing this. Flowanda | Talk 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You might have to wait a day for 207.237.137.37 to file a complaint as you invite since I just blocked them for WP:NPA over accusing you of "blatant lies". They keep aluding something about "Jews" but I don't understand their comments. If they are being racist explain to me and I will lengthen the block. --BozMo talk 07:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything specifically aimed at me. My intent was to clearly spell out the actions they need to take to deal with this ongoing complaint so we can stop arguing with them and just point them to their options every time they try to start another fight. Flowanda | Talk 09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks! Flowanda | Talk 09:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I didn't mean to use term as a pejorative. I think of it as a more-or-less neutral slang, like "cop" for a policeman. But there's no need to bring any more tension into that talk page, so I'll cease and desist. Cheers. --Mosmof (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the revision. Vault is a verifiable source that's used on every other consulting page on Wikipedia so until it's consistently removed across all these pages, I don't think it should be axed as a source. 71.232.7.31 (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to doesn't source the information you added; trying to navigate anywhere else only brought up pages requiring paid membership. Flowanda | Talk 07:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this user is a sockpuppet of Emetman per this check Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman, why isn't the IP permanently blocked? Flowanda | Talk 06:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general we don't do permanent blocks on IPs because people just change them but this one I agree has come back after an interval with the same owner and probably should be blocked again for longer. --BozMo talk 09:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flowanda, I am writing to request that you reconsider removal of the link to LASIK Surgery Watch from the External Links section of the LASIK [6] article. It is important that readers of this page have access to views on LASIK that are presented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. I have described in a post to LASIK's talk page [7] how a link to LASIK Surgery Watch can be justified under Wikipedia's External Links guidelines, and why this link would provide important information and balance to the page. Regards, lsw_webmaster. Lsw webmaster (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you deleted a reference from Christianity and alcohol with the edit summary "removed link to spam commercial .edu website not meeting WP:RS." I am not at all affiliated with that website or its author, but I think I added the citation to this article. It appears to me to be well sourced, adapted from published material, written by an academic who studies alcohol usage and keeps a variety of links on his webpage at SUNY Potsdam, which is not a commercial institution. Why is this spam, commercial, or a non-reliable source? I have restored the citations for now. If you find fault with this, let's hash it out on the article's talk page. Cheers! --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here Talk:Christianity and alcohol#Potsdam links are not university .edu pages -- I suggest clicking on the "more controversies" link on the article page to get a big taste of the commercial POV. Flowanda | Talk 17:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda: I saw that you made some edits to the Social Norms Approach article, disputing the neutrality and suggesting a conflict of interest. I am not completely sure why you added those tags, but I did add a new section about the Criticisms of the Approach to make the article more well-rounded. That being done, I ask that you would reconsider adding those tags. And if you still think there are issues with the article, I would really appreciate any suggestions you have on improving it. Thank you! --CKL55 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I saw you removed my link to UK Drink Driving Sentence Calculator from the external links section on the Drunk driving (United Kingdom) article with the comment Removed commercial link; please see talk page on the Revision History Page. You have also commented The website is not notable and shows no history or authority even to meet the qualifications as an external link. Every page is dominated by ads or links for ways vendors can become a "corporate sponsor". on the talk page for this article. Please point out where exactly on every page, even point out where exactly on more than one page there is any mention of ways for vendors to become "Corporate Sponsors"? The only mention of corporate sponsors is on the Mission Statement Page and it is BRIEFLY mentioned. There is a small google adsense link at the BOTTOM of every page, I would hardly call that dominating the page with ads. However I notice that there is an external link to *Hit your limit? Check this blood alcohol content calculator on the Breathalyzer article that is clearly commercial and IS dominated by ads, there is no less than THREE banner advertisements, SEVEN affiliate links and a subscription link on the very page that that link points too, yet this link is acceptable?

I have provided some valuable edits and content for the Breathalyzer, Drunk driving (United Kingdom) and Driving under the influence articles, all researched through the Drinkdriving.org website, namely about the first breathalyser and UK drink driving sentencing guidelines.

The following which appears on the Breathalyzer article was all researched by information found on Drinkdriving.org:

A 1927 paper produced by Emil Bogen[3] who collected air in a football and then tested this air for traces of alcohol discovered that the alcohol content of 2 litres of expired air was a little greater than that of 1cc of urine. However, research into the possibilities of using breath to test for alcohol in a person's body dates as far back as 1874 when Anstie made the observation that small amounts of alcohol were excreted in breath[4].

The first practical roadside breath testing device intended for use by the police was the drunkometer. The drunkometer was developed by Professor Harger in 1938. The drunkometer collected a motorist's breath sample directly into a balloon inside the machine. The breath sample was then pumped through an acidified potassium permangate solution. If there was alcohol in the breath sample, the solution changed colour. The greater the colour change, the more alcohol there was present in the breath.

The drunkometer was quite cumbersome and was approximately the size of a shoe box. It was more reminiscent of a portable laboratory.'

So was the following information which appears on Drunk driving (United Kingdom) and Driving under the influence articles:

In the UK when drink drive offenders appear before a Magistrates Court, the Magistrates have guidelines they refer too before they decide on a suitable sentence to give the offender. These guidelines are issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council [18] and cover offences for which sentence is frequently imposed in a magistrates’ court when dealing with adult offenders.

Offences can either be tried summarily which means they can only be heard in the magistrates court or they can be either way offences which means magistrates may find their sentencing powers are insufficient and indict the case to crown court. The majority of drink driving offences are summary only offences which can only be tried in a magistrates court. Only the most serious offences such as where there is evidence of dangerous driving or there is a death involved are indicted to crown court. The maximum sentence magistrates can usually impose is a £5,000 fine and/or a six-month prison sentence.'''

I would like to know how the link to UK Drink Driving Sentence Calculator does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:External links? When it plainly does not violate any copyright, is accessible, proper in the context of the Drunk driving (United Kingdom) article and proves useful to a lot of readers of said article and is directly related to the articles subject matter.

Please elaborate.

May I thank for your good work in helping to eliminate the remaining David J. Hanson spam. I'm also keeping an eye on it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the external links are removed, it's not an obvious candidate for CSD. If you feel that the article warrants a discussion deletion, you can nominate it at AfD. There are quite a few Google results, for what it's worth. I've put an {{unreferenced}} tag on it and will add it to my watchlist to keep an eye out for spammers. ... discospinster _talk 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Would you mind moving your discussion to a new section? ... I can do it for you, if needed."

Thank you for the help. I'm not (very) experienced editing Wikipedia and don't know how to do it or for that matter where exactly to edit in the future. Would you please do it for me and send me a link so I (hopefully) get the point? Thank you in advance. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this link still continues to be added, and it will probably be a long time before the effects of its POV will be totally erased from Wikipedia, I'm adding this link as a shortcut for myself: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1#About 400 links to the two sites of one individual. Flowanda | Talk 02:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ratting me out. Pfft. It's cluttered in here. You should look into archiving your talk page. -- Me^Holla! 23:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry for whatever's going on with you. Flowanda | Talk 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Harry the Dog WOOF 06:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a detailed response to your comments and accusations at my user talk page. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the external links in the paraphilic infantilism article. To avoid conflicts of interest, I haven't been editing the external links: My page (understanding.infantilism.org) has been on the external links list since before I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2006. This is one reason why the external links were in so much worse shape than the article as a whole. I was wondering if I could ask you to do two things:

• Note that the two items currently in the external links section are also in the references, as #9 and #10. Having them in two sections is a little redundant. In hindsight, I guess I could have removed them before they were moved into the external links section.
• Would you mind reconsidering understanding.infantilism.org as an external link? I believe it offers a much greater scope and level of detail than the Wikipedia article is intended to, and is a knowledgeable (although generally not tertiary) source. BitterGrey (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and disclosure. I went ahead and reverted my edits and then just removed the spam links I was chasing. Since this seems to be a topic not covered in the mainstream press (or with any expectation that it would be), I think you'll need to make your case at Wikipedia talk:External links or WP:RSN.

Please do not falsely accuse me Flowanda, I have not added my promotional material to the Creative financing page. You do not know what you are talking about and this subject is not your specialty.

Thanks, --122.118.67.21 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam detection is my specialty. Flowanda | Talk 07:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "real spam specialist"? So besides vandalizing other Wikipedians knowledgeable contributions, what do you actually contribute in the way of knowledge to Wikipedia Flowanda? --JoeSeo (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your problem. No single editor will ever be your problem if bullying and belittling other editors are the only ways to protect your edits or the integrity of "your" article. Flowanda | Talk 02:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please quit with the vandalism. Your edits have not contributed anything at all, do you have anything to contribute? If so, you are welcome. I also noticed you spamming a number of pages with your non-notable links, or creating useless one sentence articles. --JoeSeo (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must have me confused with someone else. Regardless, your additions will most likely continue to be edited unless you care to learn Wikipedia policy. It's no different than following SEO rules. Flowanda | Talk 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who the heck is Eddie Tuduri and why can't you find some useful content to add to Wikipedia instead of deleting everyone else's? From looking at your edits it seems you thrive on nothing more than fighting/reverting with other Wikipedia editors. Please review Wikipedia policy.--JoeSeo (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was not going to reply to your posting on my talk page but I have now found myself unable to resist as it was one of those postings that runs so contrary to proper behavior on Wikipedia that i thought I would point it out to you so that you do not do this to anyone else in the future.

Per WP:COI - "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." Examples include: Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, Promotional article production on behalf of clients, Campaigning, Close relationships. What you have identified is an interest not a conflict of interest. I have focused on the private equity sector among other topics in finance, companies, etc. since it was most in need of attention and improvement. My efforts have been overwhelmingly positive and remarkably balanced as well as well written, informative and referenced. Additionally, on my user page I am very open with my interests.

In addition to creating articles about notable topics and companies, I have also participated actively in deletion of inappropriate articles, deletion reviews and salvaging articles that have been inappropriately nominated for deletion. If you have a specific problem with anything I have done, then you specify where those issues are. Otherwise I would suggest that in the future you not leave accusatory postings on anyone's talk page. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow the COI process. WP:COI#Examples makes things pretty clear and so do your blanket reverts of my edits. Flowanda | Talk 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative Dribble is already notable. It's syndicated on the Atlantic Monthly's website and RGE Monitor, not to mention a dozen other sites. The link is appropriate. Do your diligence before you edit. Erdosfan (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The sources for the above DD Wikipedia article indicate that Charles Davi is the notable one, not his blog. The Atlantic Monthly carries columns written by Davi, not Derivative Dribble. If it were me, which it's not, and you were asking for suggestions, which you didn't, :) I'd say let the AM columns gather more steam, then ask for help in determining when there's enough notability to reclaim the article. Let me know, and I'll help. Flowanda | Talk 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy here from Newsoxy. I saw that you sent me a Talk. Forgive me, as I'm new, trying to figure out how to respond directly to your questions regarding the Newsoxy Website. Newsoxy (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you do NOT post URLs pointing to web sites for the purpose of promoting the web site or product, such as what you did to the iPhone article earlier today. Groink (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The iPhone article met the guidelines for external links. It offered credible information about the product and was not promoting a Website. We spent two weeks going over the Wikipedia guidelines. We offered published and credible information about the iPhone. It was not spam, it was not site promotion. This is where I'm confused. Newsoxy (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is that you, as a representative of Newsoxy.com, represent a primary source. Wikipedia does not allow primary sources. Only secondary sources and beyond are allowed. This is covered in WP:OR. Think about it... What if an editor from the New York Times flooded Wikipedia with links to its articles? The proper protocol on Wikipedia is for other editors not related to your web site to link to your web site. Now, if you're thinking about creating a new account and then flood Wikipedia with links to your web site, think again... Wikipedia has bots here that will actually blackball your web site if it finds someone adding several links to different web sites, pointing to the same web site. Groink (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groink, I now understand a lot more than previously read in the several pages of guidelines that take a PhD to read. Thanks for your time on this manner and better explaining a bit more. The examples you used (i.e. Editor from NY Times) does make perfect sense. I was just trying to link information hoping that it could be contributed to Wikipedia. However, I do understand the reasons behind the link removals. Thanks again. Newsoxy (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bitemewhydoesthishavetobesohard.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. --Skier Dude (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Peanutridingabike.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to, but can't get to it until tonight. If it hasn't been resolved/settled by then, I'll be happy to look through it. Flowanda | Talk 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's winding down but if you have time and wish to I certainly won't stop you! -- Banjeboi 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the discussion, I realized I don't have the experience needed to comment on your request. Although I participate in AfDs and other similar discussions aimed at achieving consensus, I have rarely involved myself in discussions involving the actual structure of policies. Flowanda | Talk 06:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, thank you for considering it! -- Banjeboi 18:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Covenant Eyes. Can you elaborate on why the references don't appear to meet notability requirement? A discussion is started on Talk:Covenant_Eyes

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bitemewhydoesthishavetobesohard.jpg. 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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bitemewhydoesthishavetobesohard.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making a personal attack on me here by suggest I may be bullying this user (himself an assertive lawyer, by the way he uses legal language and keep disclosing the contents of court documents)? ► RATEL ◄ 09:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratel, Please be reasonable. You cannot seriously consider such a circumspect implication as that an accusation of bullying, or a personal attack. --BozMo talk 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Copperfield is a real, live, breathing person, Ratel, please don't forget. Flowanda | Talk 05:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are the people whose lives he has affected. Let's not forget the little people. ► RATEL ◄ 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your spite temporarily turned the article into an attack page. No one is stalking you, btw, but there is a growing number of editors keeping tabs on your increasingly unproductive actions. Labeling editors won't make them go away or any less fit to fully and equally participate in every area of Wikipedia. Wikipedia remains a place where anyone can edit, no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise. Flowanda | Talk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowlanda,

I appreciate your engaging me in a dialogue on this. Though the link does go to a commercial site, it is deep within an articles section, removed from any visible sales pitch or branding. It reflected useful information that I was not able to find on any other site, specifically the parts that advise people that renovations do not necessarily increase home value if there are other mitigating factors. This gives it merit.

I submit Wikipedia's guidelines for External Links for your consideration:

What to link Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

The site discusses home improvement from the context of someone considering whether to increase a property's value, a common and relevant context.

Links normally to be avoided

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

This link indeed meets that criteria.

I welcome your thoughts on this.

Toby Bichon Wilson (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. You really need to stop adding the link back in for now...there have been several editors who've independently removed this link from several articles, but another editor is flirting with edit warring by continuing to readd the link...and not being very nice about it. Starting these discussions is the best way to work through the points you've raised, so I'll reply on the article talk pages, and we'll go from there. Flowanda | Talk 01:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[[In other words Flowanda, because a lot of people did it before you, then that alone makes it right. I think you could find justification for slavery using your logic.]]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.185.211 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's incorrect. The editor asked for help, and I provided some suggestions on the best ways to discuss the addition of this company's edits and links. The links were -- and still are -- being removed by a number of editors because it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, not because we all have some personal grudge or power trip. The aggressive and combative way the links are being added will only serve to have the link declared as spam and blacklisted, but as I've not been involved other than an initial participation in the discussion, please don't come here blaming me for your frustration or lack of success. A better strategy would be to provide a link to a published news article where your real estate company/reps are quoted or used as sources -- but link to the actual news source, not your website. Otherwise, it will most likely get deleted. Flowanda | Talk 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to personally thank you for helping me see things more clearly with your insights. Farmhouse00 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make fun of me. I had no idea of the deep acrimony. Flowanda | Talk 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda

Quick question regarding your objection to the sourced info provided for the section. Do you think the following would be sufficient?

• Mortgage Refinancing Shysters June 3, 2009 by The Illustrated Primer
• Stimulus gives rise to consumer scams March 7, 2009 by Jeff Gelles Philly News

Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.186.218 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this post since it was added the same time as another discussion. Let me take a look at it again. Flowanda | Talk 20:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the Philadelphia Inquirer article to the external links, but I don't see how Apelbaum's personal experiences are notable enough that his blog entries garner their own sections at at least two Wikipedia articles unless they have received significant mainstream media attention. There also seems to be a great deal of editing activity and user page blanking by a number of IPs and editors who seem devoted to adding all things and anything related to this subject. Flowanda | Talk 06:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ.com etc. have been raised before. As for 3RR, check with User:EdJohnston on that other editor's history. He made an absolute commitment not to editwar on Copperfield ... to get out of an indef block which followed on the heels of a block for 3RR where he also promised to behave (less than a week between). He also loves PAs such as calling me "deranged" and a "nut case" and worse <g>. Collect (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I look forward to improving articles. I will let you know if I have any policy questions in the future, and pleased to meet you! Feather Jonah (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the talksurgery.com and cosmeticsurgery.com links because they don't meet the criteria for sourcing, along with info about time frames and side effects. The product has probably been around long enough to have some news articles published that can support the info you added. I can a take a look for sources tomorrow if you don't find anything in the meantime. The article could certainly use some help; the article has had a history of abuse and lack of citations. Flowanda | Talk 01:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you. I didn't look too closely as I was researching but figured they were valid medical sites. Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner! Feather Jonah (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, what is your relationship to the user Trevor Marron?--PiRSqr (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None that I'm aware of. But if you want to know how I got to SocialSense, it was from following the large number of IPs and accounts making large numbers of edits related to the business interests of Jacob Apelbaum.[8] Flowanda | Talk 06:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.--PiRSqr (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding me editing past comments on a discussion page and updating the date stamp to note my changes. I apologize, no malice was intended. I thought that this was an active and a dynamic conversation and that I could update my comments with new supporting evidence. I promise not to do it again. As far as the proper location for the references I added. I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that I can actually go to the main article and add them there? (I thought that at this point the article was frozen and I couldn’t touch it anymore).--PiRSqr (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is unusual in that you can pretty much edit any page, any comment, any edit, so that's why there are a lot of guidelines and what they call wikietiquette. Freezing the article would defeat the purpose of the AfD discussion; improving the article with sources, additions, etc. is encouraged. I knew what you were trying to do, but didn't want to revert or move anything around. If you'd like, if you update the article with the links, I can rollback all your changes and move your new links down to a new comment so they will be more prominent to the editors who've already commented. Flowanda | Talk 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also make a request on one of the monitored noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or WP:EAR, to get some immediate help. Flowanda | Talk 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking?

The excel spreadsheet is FREEEEEEEEEEEE and useful.

Wikipedia, always have this kind of people/"police"... Get lost and delete everything you want... My contribution has finish in WIKIPEDIA. --Accountingstandards (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the most recent of the refactoring by Ratel (talk · contribs). Trying now to make sense of the recent talk page history. :P Cirt (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's some badger-baiting going on, but I was hoping if we could get one fairly clear decision made based on edits...well, you'll see. I just don't where to go to get more editors to participate, and I certainly have no business trying to referee. Flowanda | Talk 04:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what their comment meant, either. I wouldn't be too concerned with it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of my comments were meant to be warnings or veiled threats to anyone, least of all you. The comment i made in ref to women making dreadful mistakes I was thanking you for your concern! Alot of naive women give out personal info and it turns out to be a dreadful mistake for them. I am neither naive nor reckless. From reading comments, I think you are a woman, so I was thankful that you were concerned about my safety as well as ratel's possible inappropriateness. as per the happy hunting comment, i only meant happy hunting for proof that i am actually karelin7, collect, scramblecase or whoever else everyone thinks i am. It is impossible to find proof of something that isn't true.It seems to me that they are on a hunt to prove Im a sockpuppet, hence the "happy hunting". My comments were not meant to be taken as anything other than in jest. and if i were to say something mean or negative, I have no reason to say it about you....... even while stating your disagreements with me, you never once made me feel attacked. I do not have a problem when with a person just because he/she doesn't agree with me. I hope you don' feel threated in any way by my comments. if you do, I apologize!! Emely1219 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account. It is clearly another iteration of banned user Y2Kfreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help Otto Placik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) get started as an editor on Wikipedia? His IP had been blocked due to editing by two of his employees, but an account has been created for him bypassing that block. He has been counseled regarding responsible editing, but he might need some help in determining what the appropriate boundaries are. Fred Talk 12:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had alot of matters to discuss which I have posted in my discussion and would greatly appreciate you addressing these matters at your earliest convienience. I would be more than happy to learn "appropriate boundaries" and feel that I have tried in good faith to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. I am very frustrated at the negative talk in many of the discussions and feel that many are in bad faith or at least with a poor understanding of the subject matter. Thank you for your time and attention. Otto Placik (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it appropriate to post a picture of myself on my user page? All of my photos, including the image of myself have been removed. I understand and will comply with keeping my before and after photos off of my user page, but I do not understand why I cannot have a single image of myself? I will await for your response to edit my user page any further. Again, thank you for your time and attention.Otto Placik (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes provided that you have a picture of yourself which you are happy to release under the licence terms here (which are basically that anyone can then use the picture of you for free provided it is attributed). --BozMo talk 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like resistance, assistance may seem futile but seldom is. Anything you can do is appreciated, no heroics necessary. Fred Talk 12:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larrychiang (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Please check the "Hacking Foo Camp" article and post a link if you feel it isn't spam. http://www.mbablogs.businessweek.com/WhatTheyDontTeachYouAtBusinessSchool/archive/2009/05/11/hacking-foo-camp.htm[reply]

P.S. You edited my "credit card" entry but I won't argue it because you're probably unediting EVERYTHING in credit, payday loans, credit cards. Btw, Google me and my background in consumer credit education (particularly with college students)-- I've been a credit advocate since the 80s

@larryChiang on Twitter Larrychiang (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did research you and your college credit card marketing services company -- ucms.com -- before I removed the information and links to your commercial duck9.com. There is also no independent media coverage of the claims you make on your user page. The actual Google results are not that impressive, even if they carried any weight for meeting notability or as a reliable source. Your contributions to BusinessWeek MBA blogs are considered to be user generated and are not edited or reviewed by anyone at BW before pulication.[9] However, I obviously did not do a very good job at keeping up with the edits at Credit card since there are a number of other links that do not meet WP:RS and need to be removed. Flowanda | Talk 06:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo, Thanks for the note. Happy to watch and help when I see easy things I can do (also I have developed a certain respect for your preparedness to engage on issues like COI and want to encourage the spirit even if it upsets people occasionally) but can you tell me which BLP things bother you? I don't often get involved in BLP (mainly I tend to do science or religion articles). --BozMo talk 09:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like for me to try to find a source for this fact tag? I'm not sure if there is something in our press releases, but I'd be happy to look. Or, I could create some "official" explanation on MyWikiBiz, but I'm not sure that would count. Let me know. I'll be watching here on this page. -- Thekohser 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was more of a reminder since the information didn't seem to be contentious (with the exception of using "thus", but that's my problem). I'm more concerned about the previous section and the statement about cautioning other businesses...that's what needs to be removed per WP:BLP until it can be adequately sourced. But if you really want to create something official to help, how about "Flowanda needs to stop procrastinating and get back to work." Flowanda | Talk 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... The claim that MyWikiBiz acquired the Centiare database is sort of supported by the first line of this press release. And then there's this, but it's unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source. -- Thekohser 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me to understand what it is that you're doing, I mean, besides driving me batty? -- Thekohser 01:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just getting around to learning how to edit on wiki and I appreciate the notifications you have placed on my user discussion page. I just discovered the archived discussion:[[10]]. I want to thank you for your even handed mangement of my situtation and User: Paravis. I have found several comments about me made by him on several talk pages and found it frustrating. Thanks for notifying him to put his fists down. I had a comment on an item for which I desire clarification. Clearly there seems to be users who feel that my using my name is somewhat offensive or at least gives the impression of self promotion. I appreciate and have reviewed the comments of these other users. I also appreciate the efforts made by others to "scrub" (a new term to me) my images to bring them into compliance as I learn the nuances of posting acceptable images. It is somewhat confusing in that OTRS requires identification of the individual providing the copyright license,etc. Yet once the image is posted the identification is less desireable. My user name is my real name (Fred Bauder suggested this would be impartial) and there is no other option other than the user name as the author. I am aware of other accepted users who upload accepted images and who employ the username DRXXXX (I can provide examples if you desire). I am also the source and have identified myself as the source (Fred Bauder also suggested this is reasonable). In the past, I had links which Mr. Bauder informed me were unacceptable and I immediately removed these. Furthermore, early in the process, staff members were uploading the pictures under their own names which prompted claims of sockpuppetry. When Mr. Bauder helped me to appeal the block, he suggested creating my user name but now other editors are claiming meat puppetry implying that I am creating new users. Again the record shows that Mr. Bauder created my user name [[11]] and I have also requested that users sarahjohnson123 and emilymiller123 (staff members in the office) refrain from any further contributions. Clearly there is a learning curve to this process and I hope that I am showing good faith efforts to comply with the standards but it is a bumpy road. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your input Otto Placik (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there has been some recent discussion in regards to my geographical location on my images and user page. I just wanted to bring to your attention that I will be attempting to remove that on my user page and images. I was not aware that it would cause a problem. Again, thank you for your time and assistance. Otto Placik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Flowanda, I understand the technical reason for your removal of the external link to my blog's most frequently visited and appreciated page. As far as I know, it is the most comprehensive assembly of churn rates found on the Internet or in print, and (as you can see from comments by visitors to my blog) it is highly valuable to people looking for it. Is there any way to make this link actually "legal" within the Wikipedia framework? It seems to me, all we're doing by removing it is denying visitors the additional information that they're obviously seeking. (Today, I received about 25 click-throughs from Wikipedia to that post.) -- Thekohser 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow WP:EL to the letter or blindly; the blogspot url and COI were only minor considerations. I looked to see if the blog or author had any established authority related to the subject or had been referenced or quoted in any mainstream or industry articles, and I couldn't find any. Traffic and comments carry little weight, especially if they are used as the main reason for inclusion. I'm being more frank here than I have been elsewhere because I want to respect what you have said are your intentions, but all my edits are in response to things you already know. Flowanda | Talk 02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any notable experts on churn rates? Or, more specifically, are there any experts on aggregating the publicly disclosed churn rates of various companies in diverse industries into one compendium? I am interested in sharing this information to a wider audience of people who would care about it. I am not seeking any profit or overt accolades from it. I have determined that the Wikipedia article about "churn rate" gets approximately 9,000 page views per month. We are inhibiting the Wikimedia Foundation mission by denying these people the quick, easy, and free access to more pertinent information about empirical churn rates. I have a couple of other thoughts to try to convey the information. Would it make it more acceptable if the content was published on Google Knol, then linked from Wikipedia? I notice that several hundred outbound links extend from Wikipedia to Knol, many of them from article space. Or, is there another Wikimedia project where a data aggregation such as mine would be welcome, and then THAT could be linked from the Wikipedia article? I was thinking Wikisource, but it is unclear to me whether it would be welcome or not. I am seeking your assistance of advice. -- Thekohser 03:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, it seems that my work has been cited (see Note #2) in a serious publication by Dewitt Latimer, Deputy CIO and Chief Technology Officer at the University of Notre Dame. Does this change, at all, the value of my original blog post as a valid link? -- Thekohser 04:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource said they don't accept blogs as "publications", so I'm trying over at Wikibooks. What would be very helpful, though, is some direct guidance on whether a link out to Wikibooks will be accepted into the article about churn rates on Wikipedia. Please advise! -- Thekohser 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I draw any inference in your failure to respond to me, Flowanda? Just wondering, not sniping in any way. Best wishes. -- Thekohser 12:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought your comment at the reliable sources page] indicated you had already found the answers. But I don't understand "Then I went to Wikibooks, and while they were more open to the idea, still buried it in caveats that put me to flight." with a link to this page...were you referring to me or this discussion? I don't have any experience with Wikibooks (I don't think I've ever clicked on a link until just now), and I'm not sure how it works. Basically, though, it looks like you're trying to find a way to add in what looks like WP:OR or links that don't meet EL or RS. I expect there should be more discussion than just my 2 cents, so if the article doesn't get much editing, I think a request at the EL or RS could get some more eyes and a better chance for consensus. Flowanda | Talk 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking that through, because I was going to say that perhaps a third of all External links from main space articles point to pages that most would consider "original research". I think I have changed my mind now, anyway. This refusal to open up this information to the community of free culture lovers has given me a new idea, and I'll be pursuing it off-Wikimedia. Necessity is the mother of invention. -- Thekohser 01:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda, I'm sorry for replying to you so late...been busy with work and haven't checked back on Wikipedia for a few weeks. I just now saw what you wrote on my talk page about getting more COI editor experience, thanks for your compliments, and I will definiely take your advice under serious consideration. I actually quite enjoy the discussions I've been a part of on the Copperfield page, it allowed me to learn a lot of the Wikipedia policies, A LOT of it covering RS, COI, and RFC, lol, and also just to see how people handle/react to different subjects. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flowanda. You sent me a message saying that I edited Jack Gulick's article. I think you may have gotten me confused with someone else. I've never heard of Jack Gulick, nor have I ever edited his page. Voros1975 (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's tradition to include the birthdate in the header but the birthplace later on, i.e. "early life". It might be because WP:MOSBIO (under "Opening paragraph") states that "Dates of birth and death" should be included in the header but says nothing of birthplace. All Hallow's (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Contentmaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Connwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Cortamears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)

• consultantlive.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• cancernetwork.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• diagnosticimaging.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• physicianspractice.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• psychiatrictimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• cmpmedica.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

As starters. Flowanda | Talk 10:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda:

I spent some time reading the policies you cited in your message to me, and then prepared the following--which I erroneously posted on my own Talk page rather than on yours. Here it is:

<<As you know, CMPMedica has been investing much time and effort enhancing Wikipedia's medical content. CMPMedica is one of the leading publishers in medicine, and produces a balanced portfolio of print and Web journals that educate a wide range of healthcare professionals. As requested in your letter, we have completed a thorough review of the policies you mention, and our response appears below.

First, I'm happy to tell you more about myself. I am a medical editor with over 30 years in professional medical communications. My agenda is the dissemination of accurate medical information. My citations are non-promotional, and they reference materials whose quality standards are amongst the highest in the industry.

As to the guidance on Reliable Resources, all of the citations from CMP Medica are to peer-reviewed (and highly regarded) secondary medical sources. Besides Consultant, you'll see that I have also added citations to the Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine, the AIDS Reader, Psychiatric Times, and Oncology—all of which adhere to the highest standards of neutrality and authority, relying on close contacts with expert boards of medical advisers to guide the direction of content and the choice of authors.

None of the information I have added relates in any way to the corporate business of United Business Media. My text and citations cover a wide variety of medical topics, without regard to point of view. If you read some of my text additions you will see that they are all purely, as your guidelines say, "encyclopedic" in nature.

It is my policy to look for gaps in Wikipedia's information and add citations where these exist, particularly in cases where citations on a topic are more than 5 years old (as specified in Wikipedia guidelines). I explicitly avoid adding citations where the existing references are adequate. Furthermore, it is my intention never to delete content. (It appears that I did delete one sentence from the Knee article, but that was inadvertent and I am about to correct it.) I intend only to add value and enhance information.

For instance, in the case of the asthma articles you cite, my additions (1) clarified the physiology of the hygiene hypothesis, (2) pointed out from secondary sources that doctors can rely on a child's self-report of symptoms beyond the age of 7, and (3) added the crucial main point of the latest US government guidelines, that doctors and their patients need to collaborate to work out an asthma action plan (filling a considerable gap in Wikipedia information). To an article about cardiovascular disease, which had previously focused only on the use of medications, I added the essential information that diet, exercise, and other lifestyle interventions should also be part of the picture, including a citation from a review (which helped to add balance and neutrality to an article that had been largely promoting drugs).

I am willing to submit my edits for discussion, but as many of them are quite small and none are controversial, I question whether this would be a good use of everyone's time.

I'm indebted to someone else for pointing out that the link to my Contentmaven name had been replaced by a redirect to a small article I wrote about Agitation in dementia (a topic that was absent on Wikipedia until I added it). I have replaced this erroneous redirect with identifying information.>>

Contentmaven (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Contentmaven[reply]

Canada top employers awards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Jan_1#Spamming_.22top.22_Canada_employers Flowanda | Talk 07:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the MyWikiBiz article. Thank you. -- Thekohser 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You're griping at me elsewhere, so if you are being facetious here, then I'd rather you be clear why, okay? Detecting subtleties is not one of my gifts. BLP clearly applies to the MyWikiBiz article, so there should be no doubt to the extra weight your comments or concerns have about the editing needed to "get it right". Flowanda | Talk 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 173.65.245.76; if the rest do anything more, tell me and I'll block the lot of them. Either this is a single spammer using multiple IPs, or it's a group working like meatpuppets, and if meatpuppets can be treated as a single individual in dispute resolution, I don't see why we shouldn't treat them that way in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can, as the noticeboard people will have a more sophisticated understanding of spamming that I do. I can take care of a few individuals now if you want, or you could leave everything up to the noticeboard; I won't care :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that you have placed yourself as the guardian of all things Rolex, so be it. But it is a pity that after all the work and research and tidying-up that I did on these articles, such a Draconian decision should be made. I am not prepared to waste time re-doing it all, just to come up against someone who deletes first and dictates/discusses after. Good luck with the up-keep of these articles. They are all yours now. Captainclegg (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to keep them up, just remove the spam, just as other editors have attempted to do and discuss in the past. Flowanda | Talk 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to improve Diving watch are appreciated, as the article does need work. However, the addition of so many redlinks to articles that will never be created (such as FiftyFathoms.net, WatchReport.com, Citizenwatch.co.jp, etc.) is a disservice to the article. Nobody will take the time to sort out your useful edits from this sort of damage, so your aim of improving the article will be lost. Before making any further edits of this sort, please consider carefully whether there is a realistic chance that an article with the name you are wiki-linking would ever exist on Wikipedia. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So please explain what the problem is? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with WP:RS but at the moment I'm struggling to find any truly reliable ones. On a similar note please point out to me how the citations fail to meet WP:EL according to WP:EL citations aren't classed as external links. Maybe you should give us a hand instead of just undoing our edits. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't have reverted your edits, but the page has a history of abuse and probably with good reason. The term seems limited to internet marketers, and I haven't been able to find any reliable reporting or discussion using this or a related phrase. Finding sources is what I like to do, btw, despite certain recent edits. See [12], among others. Flowanda | Talk 05:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently compiled and listed a case at sockpuppet investigations. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the sockpuppet investigations page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 23:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the page with the codes I need? Flowanda | Talk 03:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally missed that page, so a checkuser is probably not correct in this situation...does that mean the SPI case I created will be completely closed or just the checkuser part of it? The examples I used were just the easiest to find; the edit histories show these users have been creating and editing multiple articles related to Apelbaum in order to avoid detection of gross self-promotion. If there was only one user, any spam and COI would be easier to detect and document for future editors. Flowanda | Talk 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please correct the case and add the appropriate code letter along with concrete evidences. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your recent interest in PoliticsPA, both in its article and in the Kevin Acklin AFD. Are you interested in Pennsylvania politics? If so, I have collected some good resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania/Politics and Government, which is a sub-project of the WikiProject Pennsylvania. Perhaps they can be of use to you. Also, let me know if you would like to collaborate on articles about Pennsylvania politics, because maybe we can work together on some aricles. --Blargh29 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none, thanks, but I'm sure other editors will sooner or later find loose threads from such non-notable articles as Kathy Pippy and begin working their way through the rest of your edits, like those at Chomsky. I'm tired of you people for now, but I'm sure others are not. Flowanda | Talk 09:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

• politicspa.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Blargh29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)
• A. Gorilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)

You appear to have a major WP:COI related to PoliticsPA. 8,000 edits in 6 months; you need to stop editing until you have a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies. Flowanda | Talk 11:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you left a message on my talk page inquiring as to whether some of my recent edits are Spam. I responded on the [page you provided]. Also, when I first logged in I noticed that some of my edits had been reverted, but now everything seems to be in place. What's going on here? Thanks for your help. Financial Zorro (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda.

You wrote me a couple of days ago in order to encourage me to improve Wikipedia. I really appreciated that since I am new on Wikipedia and with my first post I completely failed. Actually I wanted to post a definition about "social media" on the page, one which I thought to be very nice, and even written in a good source. Another user however erased my post. Since I thought that he was wrong, I again put it on and he took it again off by stating sth about "good faith"??? Afterwards I put it back on and a couple of minutes I myself took it off since I thought that this will end in an endless on and off. Do you have any advice what to do in such situations? I still think that the definition I wanted to put on the social media side is a good one. In any case, thanks a lot for your nice note. I really appreciated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrina111 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my website (www.pl-eb.com)under the topic, "private label" and was told it appears to be "advertising" and promotional. The website features a free, global online magazine (Exclusive Brands) and a free newspage. This is valuable information about the private label industry. Yes, the website also "sells" a Sourcbook and textbooks about the private label industry also offering information. These sources are educational and informative as well. Where do you draw the line? Excbra (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Publisher[reply]

The article Jake Bell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No citations for a BLP, no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, I ask you to be with me if possible. Now, the part I included about people leaving abusive relationships and if a person leaves their spouse in the second half of the year, I kind of understand where you're coming from. If I'm merely drawing an implication on my own, even if I'm confident I'm applying tax regulation correctly, that may not be the most stable thing to include in wikipedia. I can see that. But if I can find a reference, or two . . , then that's a different story, right? I genuinely do strive to do quality work. Please be on my side if at all possible. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The correct 2nd AfD is listed here: second AfD discussion, with little or no time to participate in any discussion. Flowanda | Talk 05:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, All Star Cashville Prince, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Star Cashville Prince. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdrew the AfD. I strongly disagree with the notion, but the there were a number of editors who wanted to keep because there was a single article about him. Ironically, the article was about how he hasn't done anything yet and, two years later, he still hasn't. But they felt that satisfied GNG. I still believe he is not notable and that basing notability on a single article is essentially WP:ILIKEIT once removed. Just because one writer decided he had enough interest in the guy, he became notable to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a total mess, for sure, and you may be right -- the NYT article may just document a single event rather than what it seemed to indicate when I found and added it to the article and Afd. And I don't really have an interest one way or the other about this artist, but I doubt few similar artists are profiled in the New York Times, whether or not they have a Wikipedia article. AfD this one, as you see fit, but the real work in this area is continually removing the rumors, feuds, backstage fights, blog posts, user-generated content and overwhelming corporate skank referenced to websites that could never meet WP:RS, but somehow do. Flowanda | Talk 07:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment about your "delete" vote at the AFD for Patrick Loubert; would you be willing to reply? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This circle jerk discussion sums it up. If you want to change things, take it up somewhere else, but don't use real people as fodder. Flowanda | Talk 12:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the creepiness continues. Flowanda | Talk 05:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Saguamundi was the one, who put the weather statistics for Istanbul, but with "invisible references" that did not connect with this information.

The "references" are divided into monthly information and statistics, divided into separate web pages of this particular website, www.myforecast.com Statistics: Historical Weather Information for Istanbul.

I added, multiplied and divided the separate monthly weather statistics of Istanbul into a yearly information and statistics as whole.

This website does not show the yearly information and statistics with sources visible on one web page at all, I think they were either "lazy" or "forgot" so I "did" it on my own.

Obviously what I did is a bad method because the user will not be able to find a reference for verification nor "bother" to go through each monthly information and statistics of the city.

Now that the yearly information and statistics are now "orphans", do you have any suggestions how and if to "prop them up" with verifiable reference. The reason I did this was that such type of information and websites with such statistics are quite hard to find in the internet, and this website is very rich with such content.

Or should I find another website with yearly information and statistics with sources visible on one web page only.

Thank you

Saguamundi

Hi,

Tampa, Florida was nominated for GA a while back and I did a preliminary review with some requests for fixes. I noticed the nominator hasn't been editing for a couple of weeks. Since the GA nom can't be held open indefinitely I looked and saw you have contributed to the article recently. If you have an interest in helping to resolve the GA issues please feel free.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have some, rather, well strick views on copyright. But whatever. (and yes, I am sure it is policy)

Thanks for the heads up. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson 45 revisions restored:}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 09:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying "whatever" to WP:COPYVIO? Flowanda | Talk 12:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um no. I am not questioning the validity of your edit, it was a minor point, that I should not have brought up. sorry for making the comment. thanks.Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You took on responsibility for this article and its editor. Saving it or gutting it is the same thing, and I'm not interested in doing either by myself. Flowanda | Talk 09:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for whatever is going on with you, but don't take it out on other editors, especially new ones. No one's on their own, no matter how nice it feels to think so. Or whatever. Flowanda | Talk 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi flow, I am really confused by this last comment. I appreciate your efforts to help make this article encyclopedic. I appreciate you agreeing to close the AFD. In summary, I appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared to be tidying up before going ballistic. Telling another editor he's "on his own" once you're not around is as inaccurate, irresponsible and arrogant as thinking that thanking me for "agreeing to close the AFD" will make it true. Flowanda | Talk 10:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And disparaging another editor's suggestions and contributions isn't helpful to the article or editor looking to you for help. Flowanda | Talk 11:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flowanda, I just noticed the changes, deletions and adjustments to the article. Thank you very much for your most valuable help and contributions. I am an ammateur in this matters, and thus, I truly appreciate your insightful work. Nevertheless, I am not convinced of all the deletions you made. I don't agree with a few of the changes and deletions, but most important to me, the section on the Colombian Coffee Federation was cut down from 7 paragraphs to 5, omitting the history of 1930 and 1954. This deletion is unfounded, in my opinion. Both paragraphs are substantiated and the reference comes directly from Mr. Diego Pizano's book, who is currently one of the top Executives of the Federation.

"In December of 1930, the Fourth National Congress of Coffee Growers convened in Bogotá. Due to the vast knowledge and experience acquired by Mariano Ospina Pérez in the coffee industry, as a result of running his own coffee business, he was summoned by the Minister of Industry Francisco J. Chaux and by President Rafael Olaya Herrera to preside over this Congress. Ospina Pérez was elected President of this Fourth Congress. At the adjournment of this Congress, Ospina Pérez was elected, by the unanimous vote of the delegates, as “Gerente de la Federación” (General Director). He served in this position for four years, until 1934.[40][41] In 1954, during the election of members of the Board of Directors (of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia), Mariano Ospina Pérez, who served as President of the Republic from 1946 to 1950, was elected and installed as President of the Board of Directors. His return to the Federation marked the reappearance of one of Colombia's greatest coffee names, in an active role, in the History of Colombia's coffee industry.[23][42]" 42. ^ El Café en la Ecrucijada, Evolución y Perspectivas, Diego Pizano, Editorial Alfaomega, Bogotá, August 2001, Page 31, ISBN 958-682-192-7

In my opinion, these two paragraphs are essential to the story, not only because it emphasizes the knowledge and experience of Mariano Ospina Pérez in the coffee industry, which he successfully acquired by running his own coffee business. The History of Ospina Coffee Company an the history of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia are profoundly interrelated and, as most historians (Andres Uribe, Jorge Melo and Diego Pizano) truly and properly point it out, they are almost one and the same. They are so interwoven that one story cannot be separated or isolated from the other.

Why would these two paragraphs be removed? Specially if they are substantiated by the Federation itself? Why was the reference of "El Café en la Ecrucijada, Evolución y Perspectivas, Diego Pizano, Editorial Alfaomega, Bogotá, August 2001, Page 31, ISBN 958-682-192-7" completely removed? I might be wrong, but I see no purpose or meaning. I would like you to please reexamine this two paragrphs and reincorporate them to the article. In my humble opinion, without these two paragraphs, the story and the History will not be complete. Kindly please advise. Thanks, --Grancafé --Grancafé 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC) --Grancafé 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs) One more thing, when reviewing and reconsidering these two paragraphs, please keep in mind that five prominent members of the Ospina family and Ospina coffee were heavenly involved in the creation, organization and administration of the Colombian Coffee Federation. They were Mariano, Pastor, Tulio, Rafael and Mariano Ospina Perez. The Federation exist because of their acumen, vision, conscience, knowledge and experience obtained in running their family coffee enterprise. There is no other family, group or business in Colombia so directly and decisively involved in the establishment of this institution. The Federation exist because the Ospinas and their coffee enterprise. The Federation is a direct byproduct of Ospina coffee and perhaps the greatest achievement of the Ospina family in favor of the coffee industry of Colombia and the coffee growers. Accuracy also requires completeness and wholeness. Thank you very much, --Grancafe (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC) PS. I rearranged some paragraphs in the History section to place them in chronological order. I hope you agree with such. Once again, thank you so much for your time and consideration. Best, --Grancafé 18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)--Grancafé 18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Just fixed my signature. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Best, --Grancafe (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flowanda, please allow me further elaborate here. What I am trying to convey and stress with these two paragraphs is the fact that if the Government, the Federation and the coffee growers of Colombia trusted Mariano Ospina Pérez to run the affairs of the nation’s coffee industry, it was because of his experience, knowhow and successful achievements, proven in the handling of his Ospina coffee business. These two paragraphs are not my words. These are direct quotes from the sources and references. It is essential to explain that his unanimous election to these positions was due to his administrative and entrepreneurial successes in his private coffee business and personal affairs. Thanks for your consideration. Best, --Grancafé (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and respond to my comments at Talk:Ospina Coffee Company. Flowanda | Talk 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you will do some research of your own as an Admin, you will find that we as an organization have already repeatedly gone through the process and have successfully defended ourselves regarding meeting criteria for notability and continued inclusion in Wikipedia. Coachman76 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and I did review the AfD before again removing your inaccurate edits. The claims you make cannot be sourced to CNN or Money, and you can't cite commercial websites that just posts whatever promotional copy they're provided. Your organization needs to seriously review WP:COI, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Flowanda | Talk 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'creating weather tables sourced completely from external websites' would then apply to the vast majority of climate tables and charts that are here on Wikipedia. If so, based upon that standard, then many templates should be nominated for speedy deletion. Why not switch to NOAA data? What do you think? Thanks Mathpianist93 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? The edits you made are now sourced to a product info page at a .gov site that has nothing to to with Template:Boston weatherbox, much less the info and sourcing for the template I nominated for deletion. And if the tables and templates can't stand up to Wikipedia policies, then yes, they need to be deleted. Flowanda | Talk 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda,

I welcomed that user, and since then I seem to have become something of a mentor to him/her. WP:COI issues aside, if the user could write from an WP:NPOV/WP:RS style, would there be a problem? Things certainly started bumpy, but Grancafe has come a long way and there doesn't seem to be much benefit from trying to stifle their passion. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, [[User:Grancafe] he has not "come a long way", no, he has made no edits that can be considered "COI aside", and no, there is no sign anyone's advice or mentorship is directing his "passion" into improving Wikipedia or adhering to its policies. The worst kind of COI editor, relentlessly shoving company PR, and you want to take credit? Flowanda | Talk 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this argument as well and I find that he is following the rules about COI editing. I have read the article and it is not a piece of PR fluff as you contend. Further, your constant assertion about some very solid references not being acceptable because they are in Spanish has no place, the policy on reliable sources has no such requirement of sources being in English. I believe you are on the wrong track with your actions in this case. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the diffs that support anything "PR fluff". Flowanda | Talk 05:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since December 26, 2009, this "new" editor has made over 1,200 edits -- that's 25+ edits a day and COI edits to 43+ articles. Multiple editors have questioned Grancafe's COI and sourcing with little to no effect on his aggressive and obviously COI editing. He's been advised to take his issues to WP:ANI, but since he did not, I will begin with a request at WP:RSN. Flowanda | Talk 06:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, Grancafe has come to me repeatedly asking for help. I have told him to stop escalating this, and he has ignored me.

Since I have been here since the very beginning, (I got the editor to reverse the AFD) let me be the very next editor to say this (and who you will also argue with) Grancafe is here to build an encyclopedia, writing on a subject which he knows the most about: coffee. Yes, there is a COI, but like sockpuppetry and canvassing, not all COI is prohibited, and some is permitted and beneficial to the project.

I find Grancafe's continued bullying troubling. A good faith editor comes to wikipedia and wants to write an article about a subject which he is an expert about. First two editor put the article up for deletion. Then you relentlessly bully Grancafe. After the way you have treated Grancafe, I seriously wonder how many good faith editors you personally have bullied off wikipedia. It is no wonder that editor retention is dropping and journalists universally portray wikipedia as a really nasty place to visit. Grancafe's treatment is a case study in how good faith editors, who could be incredible editors on any other site, get bullied off wikipedia by editors who would sooner be draconian rule enforcers than collaboratively work with experts in building an encyclopedia. Okip 12:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your inaccurate summary might have been more helpful to Grancafe if you'd made it before he filed two complaints against me and was then blocked for disruptive editing when he didn't like the results. Yes, I agree he may want to be a productive, positive contributor to Wikipedia, but he won't have the chance if his attempts to destroy any editor who questions him or his edits continue to be supported by "mentor" editors such as yourself.

Unless, of course, you agree with such accusations. But it's okay if you don't agree, have no idea, or just make stuff up; I'm used to be bullied by the real bullies who think no one's going to check out their accusations or understand Wikipedia policy. That's why Eventualism works.

But in the meantime, perhaps the mentors could extend User talk:VickyMa some more assistance than de nada. I've only tried twice. Flowanda | Talk 08:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flowanda, I just noticed that you placed the Ospina Coffee logo on both, the Ospina Coffee Company and Mariano Ospina Rodríguez, articles. Thank you very much! This was very nice of you, as I had no idea on how to go about doing so. The Ospina Coffee Company article looks much better with the logo. Thanks again. Grancafé ^*parley 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome...although I still find adding images pretty complicated as well. Flowanda | Talk 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an Impropriety and harassment help request at WP:ANI --Grancafé (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been dismissed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of [13], Ratel has once again accused me of "stalking" which is now beyond tiresome, I posted the cange n the Talk page - which Ratel did not respond to, preferring to say in his revert I thank you for not trying to erase someone's past from his own biography. And please stop counter-editing every single article I'm editing. It's called stalking.) . He has repeatedly iterated this - and since this was my first edit since March 3 on that article, I find it not only stale but quite poor etiquette. Many thanks! Collect (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont take lightly your resent edits to several editors work that I know. Reliable resourcing on Wikipedia would include cites from reliable sources, links to cites, ASIN, ISBN etc. What you have done to many of these articles has been nothing more than to render them laundry lists with no nuance nor interest. That is a shame. Hours of work poured into each for no other reason than for you to slash them away. It is people like you, as Jimmy has stated, who are keeping the numbers down for editors on Wiki in general. Shame on you. You are giving Wikipedia a bad name. Over the past several years I have literally spent thousands of hours and I resent any and all of your aggressive shanigans. I have read and reread many of your older posts and I can say without hesitation you should stick with editing things you know about. You dont know enough about art and/or the art world to edit here. I suggest strongly that you edit elsewhere where you may have a wee bit of knowledge. Artintegrated (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a complaint. I look forward to the opportunity to having your many edits reviewed by other editors. Flowanda | Talk 05:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda all you do is create laundry list from the information you take away for the articles. This leaves the content uninteresting. Many have told me this as I know many editors on here including Jimmy Wales the creator of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for information but without any interest ift may as well be a dictionary. Do you understand what I am trying to get across to you. Several of the conflicts you have started are on your discussion page namely the first where they, like myself, and many others think you should maybe edit articles you know more about. Art is not among those articles. I have had several of my friends who used to edit here just decide its not worth it when they have the ordeal of editors like you who just chop up the articles and make them uninteresting. I was alerted almost immediately once you went on your warpath through several articles I have been involved with. Consider many others advice and stick with what you know. It just makes sense. I know mostly art and rarely will I edit anything otherwise unless it is minor like spelling or punctuation. No one come to Wikipedia to read droll verbage. OneMarkus (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flowanda, I remember how tenacious you were in getting rid of self-promotion by David Hanson at the CSPI article and in other places. I wonder if I could get your help on something similar, albeit less blatent. Recently at the article MiFi, someone has been sticking in all these links to a site called "MiFiClub", as though they're some sort of respected authority. So far as I can tell, it's just self promotion as well. I would strip the stuff out myself, but I'm a little leery of getting into anything controversial on this article because I have a WP:COI: I work at Novatel, the company that manufactures the MiFi. One of the edits I feel should be rolled back is, the user in question, Taige, did away with the distinction between Novatel and non-Novatel devices, referring to them all simply as "MiFi", which is a registered trademark. However, like I say, since I'm "compromised", I was hoping you could take a look and render a neutral opinion. Thanks! —Rnickel (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, I see that you deleted several of my recent contributions. I'm particularly perplexed about why you deleted my contributions to the CRON-diet and Adjustable gastric band pages. In the case of the CRON-diet, I added information about typical foods consumed on this diet, which was particularly relevant information missing from the main text. On the adjustable gastric band page I added a relevant reference that fully adheres to WP referencing guidelines. (Granted, it was a website reference and not a reference to a peer-review journal article. That being said, website links are allowed by Wikipedia, from all the documentation that I've read.) I can understand you deleting the external links; I haven't got a problem with that. But these two particular examples have me befuddled. Please explain, otherwise I will assume it was a mistake/oversight on your part and revert back. Thanks. Sherazade96 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your numerous links were also reverted by other editors, and I'm sure your previous edits will now be subject to the same scrutiny and removal. I suggest you review the very basics of WP:SPAM and WP:COI before trying to move forward. Flowanda | Talk 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am confused by your removal of my input. I have a long record of providing the consulting needed for creating net zero energy homes and buldings. I put in the reference to buildingsciencecorp because they have a huge amount of material available for FREE on their site. Their attitude is the US government paid for most of it, so they are making it available to all. I have no connection to them except for some training I have taken that they provided.

Net Zero Energy Homes are not that different from regular construction, just apply building science to what is already being done. I can even make homes with 60% glass net zero energy.

Thanks Lloyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.175.147 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zero-energy building, I was a bit confused too...one of the links was dead and the other was just to main page of the consulting firm. It took me a while to get to the buildingscience.com library. If we can source the statements to particular article/document pages on that site, they'll have a better chance of standing up to other editors' reviews. If you can provide me with the links, I'll be happy to readd the edits and format the refs. Flowanda | Talk 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy deletion of Stacy Harris as there is credible notability asserted in the article. If you still think this article should be deleted, please use WP:AFD. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I expected a decline, despite my extensive comments at Talk:Stacy Harris. As there is nothing more to this article than listings of bylines in non-notable publications, minor book acknowledgments, uncredited movie extra roles, blog comments, paid directory listings, and unsubstantiated claims about wildly over-the-top PR accomplishments, what exactly do you consider to be the examples of "credible notability"? Flowanda | Talk 08:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the forms of notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. To avoid speedy deletion, that requirement is relaxed so that normally unacceptable sources are allowed, and that the coverage is not needed to be significant. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...that is helpful. Flowanda | Talk 05:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still looking into this article? It's, umm, ugly to say the least. I've yanked most of the links already, and the references are there to say that an article was written about X by Harris. This should sail through AFD, especially with the sock farm producing it getting blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been written and now aggressively protected by the self-promoting subject (and/or her, er, lawyers), and 90 percent of the article probably needs to be cut before the article could be adequately judged for its notability or receive help from editors who might be able (and willing) to research off-line or industry-specific sourcing for some of the basic claims made in the article. It's hard to avoid edit warring when it's one editor against a gang of socks, and since I had little luck in getting my edits to stick despite the overwhelming evidence I presented on the talk page, I decided to move on until there was more editor involvement. Flowanda | Talk 22:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the socks uncovered at Wikiquote [14] were blocked for adding info and links about Jacob Appel; other than User:SMRR, I'm not sure if any of the IPs editing Stacy Harris-related articles were also part of the block. Flowanda | Talk 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand - I looked through the history on that and it wasn't pretty. The amount of promotion in the article is quite impressive. I'll see what time I can grab for some pruning over the weekend, as I think at least 3/4 of the article will go very, very quickly just for BLP reasons. Add in notability, and I suspect the 90% number is more than doable. I have absolutely no question that the article should be deleted, it just needs to be pruned of fluff to make that immediately obvious. I'll update you as I go. Oddly, this is the only article SMRR worked on. The post on Coren's page about the farm grabbed my eye - wonder how many other articles from that farm are like this? Ravensfire (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in how you can consider http://mprcenter.org and the European Journal of Social Psychology "poor sources" to the extent you felt it was appropriate to delete my contributions to social media without discussion? Furthermore, for several years I was a textbook collaborating writer/editor and there were no "extraordinary claims" in what I wrote. It was written no differently than I would write it for a textbook. Additionally, there was neither promotion of myself as an expert nor is there such promotion in my personal userspace. I don't even use my real name so that there can be no insinuation that I added to this topic to build my own person authority. From the comments above, you seem to enjoy starting conflict with people over genuine concern for increasing the credibility of articles. Sara-rockworth (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this and there is an element of 50-50. The section removed wasn't neutrally worded e.g. "Only through this process does social media ever become effective." is a clear POV not encyclopaedic fact (the "only" is particularly brazen POV). However there was sourced material in the section and a rewrite, IMHO, might have been better to turn that section into less of a soapbox. --BozMo talk 07:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was a very honest appraisal. I do have to say I do collaborate on writing - and edit - textbooks and there is a lot more liberty taken with textbooks (because they are establishing themselves as a resources with original thought/theory). Thus, I am realizing that is part of my problem as a newbie. I need to realize my textbook writing style has got to be greatly modified for Wikipedia. I also did ask an admin to look at this and he seemed to think my section was sourced better than most of the remainder of the article. So, I will be re-writing as you suggested [[user|Bozmo}} but I will be adding it back. Sara-rockworth (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but you seem obsessed with deleting Jake Appel from the article on Sanibel-Captiva. He lived at 14 rabbit road in the late 1970s & early 1980s. I should know, because I lived at 18 rabbit road. since 16 rabbit is a vacant lot, you can't possibly have lived there. I'm trying not to be a jerk; I even went through my scrapbooks to find sources. Now if you have a reason for wanting Jake out of this article, please have the courage to explain it. Have you ever even been to S-C? - Scaptivate (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yergh, not again. Some people are so persistent! That just reminded me that a Jacob Appel story is mentioned at blindness#In other animals and blind animals#In fiction. I have the blindness article on my watchlist and the first time it was added, I reverted it because it didn't seem notable enough. However the second time the Appel story was added, it came along with some other notable material, so I let it go. Do you think it's OK in those two articles? Graham87 08:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your label questioning the notability of Lyle T. Roebuck. Roebuck has won significant awards that are noted in the article and has published major articles, several important monographs, etc. If you don't think Roebuck is notable, please explain why. Troeb (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, templates can be used to alert other editors that an article needs help. I added them after I exhausted my search for sourcing for the article instead of nominating the article for deletion. I thought that satisfying the requirements for WP:ACADEMIC would be easier than WP:CREATIVE, but honestly, I don't think what you've listed here and in the article will be enough for either. Flowanda | Talk 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but you seem obsessed with deleting Jake Appel from the article on Sanibel-Captiva. He lived at 14 rabbit road in the late 1970s & early 1980s. I should know, because I lived at 18 rabbit road. since 16 rabbit is a vacant lot, you can't possibly have lived there. I'm trying not to be a jerk; I even went through my scrapbooks to find sources. Now if you have a reason for wanting Jake out of this article, please have the courage to explain it. Have you ever even been to S-C? - Scaptivate (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no clue what you're talking about. Flowanda | Talk 06:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please comment on the current AfD on Rex Partington. It would be extremely appreciated 71.167.234.104 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda, Can you please explain why you deleted what seems like good content from the Beanie Sigel page? Your comment says you've taken it to discussion, but I couldn't find anything there. Thanks in advance, WildQ WildQ (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what was wrong with the sources already their, but I added an original & reliable source WildQ (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're off to a great start, so I'll leave the editing to you and User:SandyStell. Flowanda | Talk 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of WP:MOS this morning and don't understand what it has to do with the location or hours of operation of Westview Cemetery. Sorry, Porcuswine (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADIRECTORY will be another helpful source in your editing of Westview Cemetery. Flowanda | Talk 06:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that AfD on Arborophilia was closed as Keep. You have elswhere represented it as no consensus: [15]]. I trust that this was an oversight and not an intentional effort to distort debate, as I will assume good faith, but please be more careful in your represenations of such sensitve subjects 79.142.65.53 (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't distorting or misrepresenting the outcome, or even trying to. AfDs without consensus are almost always a "keep". As to your concerns, I will kindly assert I'm doing more to improve and save the article than all those dedicated to controlling it. Flowanda | Talk 04:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation at[The Yearbook of Experts, Authorities and Spokespersons is rather sharp. Would you care to explain yourself? I've checked every source twice. If there is an error, point it out and I will change it. If not, have the decency to withdraw your claim. Tenneblind (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing list:

• User:VVX1114
• User:WildQ
• User:Theatermaven118
• User:HOLLgu
• User:109.123.79.8
• User:La Gretheil
• User:156.111.18.7
• User:Antlers&Lopes

• User:72.89.115.218
• User:Porcuswine
• User:LaurelB27
• User:Banjo Joe B

• User:Damascus911

Flowanda | Talk 08:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• User:202.52.136.91

Flowanda | Talk 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 66.65.105.131

Flowanda | Talk 10:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make sense? If so, why? -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No...I think I was trying to copy a template. Flowanda | Talk 02:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. In that case, can you recheck your above list, before I investigate those possible socks of TRATTOOO (talk · contribs), just to be certain ? -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Flowanda | Talk 06:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Btw, the above list, so far, is  Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, please help me understand your changes/deletion of part of my contribution on the bariatric surgery page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bariatric_surgery#Effectiveness_of_surgery. I have a lot of knowledge about bariatric surgery and obesity that can improve Wikipedia's content about these topics, but I am very discouraged by your deletion and re-deletion of such concrete and relevant information. The reference I included pulled together multiple credible research sources that justify the percentages provided. In addition, the page referenced includes reference information for all studies. Since their site is the one that pulled together all of the research, it seemed fair/appropriate to give them the credit rather than simply copying all of their references into Wikipedia. Please advise. Jeffqu (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made includes a source that does not meet WP:RS or WP:EL. Flowanda | Talk 10:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, please help me understand why you have deleted our re-posted contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_determinants_of_obesity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bariatric_surgery#Weight_loss. I understand why this was done initially (i.e. no verifiable/credible source posted to the site), but since then all of our website's content has been reviewed, verified and amended where necessary by licensed and practicing bariatric surgeons and dietitians whose contact information is readily available on our site (each page has a link at the top to the surgeon who reviewed/amended each page). We have also received HON Code accreditation, the most widely respected health web site accreditation organization on the Internet. For the information that I have attempted to re-post, our Advisory Council (again, made up of practicing surgeons and dietitians) agrees that Wikipedia's information is incomplete/misleading and is made more robust by my changes. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffqu (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your commercial website promoting bariatric procedures and surgeons does not meet guidelines for reliable sources or external links, so no matter how well-intentioned, sourced, approved or vetted you say your articles and websites are, bariatric-surgery-source.com does not meet Wikipedia standards. Flowanda | Talk 04:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda, you stated, "Your commercial website promoting bariatric procedures and surgeons..." To be clear, our web site does not "promote" bariatric procedures or individual surgeons. Bariatric surgery is not appropriate for everyone, and our web site's content clearly reflects this. All pages are written in an informative, unbiased way that is only intended to help visitors make the right decision for them. Please review our site to confirm this. Every page includes explicit details about the pros, cons, risks and benefits of every procedure without trying to "push" visitors one way or the other. Regarding the surgeons, we do not promote any one surgeon. Our directory is a compilation of a large majority of the ASMBS/College of Surgeons Centers of Excellence.

Regarding the "Identifying Questionable Sources" page under "Questionable Sources" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources) it states, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Bariatric Surgery Source easily passes these requirements, with extensive reference information provided at the bottom of each page and with complete editorial oversight of all pages by experienced industry professionals (again, the professionals responsible for each page are listed below each article's heading with a link to their profile). Many sites referenced throughout Wikipedia are commercial in nature (i.e. are "for-profit"), but as long as the content researched and presented is accurate, referenced and backed by credible industry professionals and as long as it contributes towards the "completeness" of each Wikipedia article, it seems that it should be include-able. For example, on one of the pages in question, you have allowed Medscape to share information and reference their site as the source (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706394, reference #18). Medscape is also a for-profit "commercial" company (they are a part of the WebMD Health Network). Please help me understand the difference between their site and ours, other than their web site's traffic volume and company size. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffqu (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Source for obesity and bariatric articles. Flowanda | Talk 08:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Flowanda. I look forward to working with the folks you referred me to and to continuing to learn from you down the road. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffqu (talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed review articles are required as references when available.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article LegalMatch, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LegalMatch (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on 68.71.52.56 (talk · contribs)? FYI, blocked as sock due to same exact pattern, seems to have been reverting back to edits of blocked sock, Njgarver (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard for me to tell, although reverting edits, then starting talk page arguments intended to run other editors ragged until they go away, is familiar. Appel and his works are covered virtually nowhere in the real world media, and none of the sources halfway added provide any stronger proof of Appel's already razor-thin notability, much less support the addition of hundreds of references to every piece of work he's every done. Flowanda | Talk 06:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Harris. Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the account of "Ratel" has been banned due to abuse. I suspect Ratel was working for others when he wrote various articles or added comments to articles (I'm thinking of the Jim Puplava article in particular). More notable than Jim Puplava is his brother Dan, who is the subject of an interesting investigation at the San Diego Union-Tribune: "Benefits manager's work questioned; County education office employee also acted as a broker" by Jeff McDonald. Interestingly, the Union-Trib story was published on March 17, 2009, six days before the Wikipedia article about Jim Puplava was published by Ratel. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/mar/17/1n17fringe00134-benefits-managers-work-questioned/ Mauralarkins (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have rarely if ever agreed but you seem to be interested in these issues. Spend 5 minutes would you and review Rabbi Pinto page. Is it not possible you once in your life can agree with me ? Surely items like the most expensive synagogue in the US, the fact that he's not well known in Israel and death curses which are mentioned in all their sources are relevant, no ? Can you review in your pursuit of justice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRATTOOO
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arborophilia (2nd nomination)

Please see above. Any investigation help would be appreciated. Further, there is also a ton of spam promo stuff on hundreds of other pages. Any ideas how to go about cleaning it up, or where best to report it? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd, I see you have been recently cleaning up lots of newer socking of this same nature of promo spam. If there are other sock accounts and IPs not yet blocked, or even blocked but not yet tagged and identified or checked, can you please list them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRATTOOO? -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit this section of Coffelt's talk page and comment there. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit as you see fit, but I don't see much baby or bathwater. Flowanda | Talk 09:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that talk page, I've raised specific points. I'd be grateful if you'd respond to those points there. -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the talk page. Most of the content needs to be removed, but all my edits have been reverted by the same editors. Until the issues of COI and ownership are dealt with, any significant edits are a waste of time. Flowanda | Talk 07:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your revealing comment there. I've responded there (in tabular form, no less); do take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Are you making fun of me? Flowanda | Talk 11:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think I would know what you were talking about as I just got on here and found your note? I am in no way trying to make fun of you. You seem to have a perpetual chip on your shoulder for everything Wiki. I think you have disdain for the editing you do on here but that is just my opinion. I wish there were a way to work on Wikipedia so people didn't get so aggravated. You choose generalities over specifics. In trying to comprehend your way of working, I find myself at times too frustrated to even add anything on here. I do the best I can and my time seems to be wasted. I try to prove everything I add to Wikipedia but with editors that had rather have lists it is hard to make anything sound the least bit interesting. Maybe Wikipedia is not the place for this. I do know there would be more editors volunteering precious time on here if they weren't worried about editors who seem to hate editing and seem to make fun of everything and everyone or at least hate the work of others. This is just my opinion but I have taken a couple of days to think this through. I do try to do the right thing every single time. I never make fun of anyone. OneMarkus (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way trying to make fun of you. I think, OneMarkus, that you're replying to a question that Flowanda was asking me rather than you; although this conversation (if it is one) is now so bizarre that I am less and less sure. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Hoary. I do take seriously what I add to Wikipedia. You are quite correct that some articles and proof of them are indeed in the wayback files but nonetheless they are there. The other thing that is hard to deal with are gallery websites that change over so often. This is one of the reasons dealing with artists becomes problematic. I assure you ido the best I can with the information I add. OneMarkus (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. Did you see the table there? -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I didn't think you were, but was making sure. Flowanda | Talk 05:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main objective of Shaving 101 is to educate people about the proper techniques of using a straight razor and safey razor. This site is research guided and is a respected source of information for those in the industry. It is compliant with the external links guidelines and is not subject to advertising since it is not a commercial site. Additionally, it is compliance with in-text citation policies on Wikipedia, which specifically states that it is editorial license as to the linking of content to an external site from an in-text cite, which is for the purpose of reader to visit the source to gauge the authenticity for themselves. In-text citations are different from external links, according to Wiki policies, and the links to Shaving101.com are in compliance. As Wiki says, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." This is a reputable site that is known for being objective and unbiased. Replace the links immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokynrobyn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general question: This was deleted sometime in 2009. Jacob is now included in the US Government case seeking users' twitter records pertaining to WikiLeaks.

I'm not a Wikipedia contributor, but would this be grounds to overturn the prior deletion which you argued for? --Brian McNeil /^talk 09:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hello Flowanda, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Lyle Roebuck, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 10:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true what Logan says. Still, this looks very inviting for prod/AfD, if you want. Then we'd see if anyone wants to ride to the rescue and supply the currently nonexistent WP:RS, which would have to show "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:AUTHOR). Wareh (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of several distractions by stalking sockpuppets, but probably still not notable despite recent edits. Flowanda | Talk 04:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just dropping by to let you know I have challenged your CSD A7 on The Crab (short story), it does not appear to qualify for A7 as a short story, and also has a decent claim of importance. I left the CSD G5 as I don't see anything wrong with that one. Monty₈₄₅ 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I appreciate you looking at it, and I'm satisfied with the redirect as I didn't want to take either article to Afd. Flowanda | Talk 04:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A long list to come Flowanda | Talk 07:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Products

1-800-Registry

1800 Tequila

APRA/Preferred Fragrance

Avenue Stores/United Retail Group

Barnes & Noble.com

Bella Mama

Beautisol

BornFre

Camp Bow Wow

The Chocolate Show

Cookie Diet / Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet

Decléor

Delivery.com

Dots

eDressMe

Evian

GliSODin Skin Nutrients

Grolsch Premium Lager

Guitar Center

Gurkha Cigars

Hint

Inergetics

Izod Boys

KRUPS LifeStyles Condoms

Marc Ecko

McDonald's

Melrose Jewelers

Meteor Games

MyJewelryBox.com

Organic Bouquet

Phillips-Van Heusen

Rocawear

RUSS Berrie and Company

Sure Fit

Syzmo

Ted Gibson

T-fal

Three Olives Vodka

Whole Foods Market

XM Satellite Radio

Adam Hanft

Advanstar Global Licensing Group

AEG Live

American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

Cernium Corporation

DLB Group

Edward A. Mermelstein & Associates

Elie Hirschfeld

Fannie Mae

Five Point Capital

Flatrate Moving

GoldMoney

Hydra

iris Worldwide

Jordan Sekulow

Joseph DiBenedetto

Kinray

Manhattan Snoring and Sleep Center

Michael Wildes

New York Global Group

Pomegranate

Prosperity4Kids

Regent University

The Law Offices of Robert H. Weiss, PLLC

SAE Institute

Snackable Media

Tom Anelli

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)

United States Beverage (USB)

AgroLabs

Dr. Anthony C. Griffin MD

CARITA Paris

Chopra Center

[[Cinergy Health, Inc.

Cookie Diet / Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet

Decleor Paris

Friedwald Center

Halo/Air Salt Rooms

Dr. Holly Phillips

Holtorf Medical Group, Inc

Dr. Keith Ablow, M.D.

Dr. Luis Navarro

Medifast

PATH Medical/ Dr. Eric Braverman

Dr. Norman Rowe

The Pritikin Longevity Center & Spa

Reflections Center for Skin & Body/Dr. Mitchell Chasin

Riccardo Maggiore

Shiseido

Smart for Life

suki

Supersmile

Dr. Svetlana Kogan, MD

Ted Gibson Beauty

USANA

Willow Stream at Fairmont

The YAN Center for Corrective & Cosmetic Surgery

Affinia Hotels

Buckingham Hotel

CheapOair.com

CheapSeats.com

EL AL Airlines

Gray Line New York

Harrah's

IHOP

Loews Hotels

Millennium Hotels and Resorts

Oyster Hotel Reviews

Patina Restaurant Group

Salamander Hospitality

Transaero Airlines

Tzell Travel

Vail Resorts

Wyndham Worldwide

1800 Tequila

The Chocolate Show

Evian

Empire Steak House

FEVER Stimulation Beverage

Fresh Harvest Products/Wings of Nature

Grolsch Premium Lager

Hint

Le Marais

Maestro Dobel

McDonald's

ROSANGEL

Syzmo

The Original SoupMan

Three Olives Vodka

Whole Foods Market

Badichi

Beyond the Rack

Donald J Pliner

eDressMe

Limelight Marketplace

Longitude Swimwear

Matteo Gottardi

OneStopPlus.com®

Philip Stein®

Private Stock Denim Company

SuperJeweler.com

Training Camp Stores

UNCL

Weatherproof

Wolfgang's Vault

Allan Houston

Blue Equity

Bad Boy Worldwide

Ben Brafman

Chamillionaire

Citibabes

Dauphin Media Group

Def Jam Interactive

DJ Khaled

Doyle “Texas Dolly” Brunson

Global Grind

Ice Cube

Jalen Rose

Kevin Liles

Lil' Kim

The Manhattan Movement & Arts Center

Nick Cannon

Pamela Anderson

Rasheda Ali

RISE Magazine

Snoop Dogg

SOHH.com

Source Magazine

Swizz Beatz

Young Jeezy

Public Affairs/Government Relations

Aish NY

American Jewish Congress

The American Friends of Magen David Adom

Benny Hinn Ministries

Christians United for Israel (CUFI)

Empire Government Strategies

The Inspiration Networks

The Jackie Robinson Foundation (JRF)

JDC

Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial

Pastor John Hagee

Regent University

Shaare Zedek Medical

Zionist Organization of America

Event Marketing

Alloy Marketing & Promotions (AMP/di)

GQ

Marcy Blum

Power Moves (PMI)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lyle Roebuck 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/Lyle Roebuck 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. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to say I like your "Cheese" edit. Wouldn't it be nice if edits had "Like" and "Dislike" buttons? --Kai Carver (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll be quick, to save time. I'm working on Ike's Rolex Watch, the yellow gold datejust. I noticed that you had made some changes to the Rolex page itself, and was wondering if you could tell me how to go about adding notable owners of the watch (clearly Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower qualify for this) to the Rolex page. Is there one particular person who has made most of the changes to the Rolex page, and if so is there a way to contact him/her?

Thanks, Ryan Raw4815 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks for your message :-) I actually edit a few different sites based in Israel. My username has nothing to do with any company I work for or have worked for. Additionally, I mostly REMOVED advertising info, not the opposite. I did add info about the company, but it was straightforward info (e.g. a new service that Payoneer offers), nothing that couldn't be shown as neutral. Anyway, thanks for the message. I didn't write the article myself (it was someone does work at Payoneer from what he said). Also - I have never shared my account with anyone, no one has my details. Have a great day! Taltalk (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda,

Thank you for your welcome letter dated today, 10 June 2011.

I would like to begin by taking issue with your accusation that I have a conflict of interest. Your accusation is baseless on its face. You mention not a single fact or shred of evidence to support your accusation.

Rather that make baseless ad personam allegations, I think Wikipedia’s audience would be better served if you focused on facts, such as the language of the article. If there is specific language in the article you would like me to revise into a more neutral tone, please refer me to that language.

One of the central purposes of Wikipedia is to better inform its readership. I believe my contributions to the America Invents Act article serve this purpose. Specifically, I: (a) added the section on Preissuance Submissions, a topic which all other contributors completely ignored; (b) corrected the the Opposition section, adding five verifiable references; (c) revised the Post-Grant Opposition section, adding eight verifiable references; (d) revised the Changes to Current Law section, adding eight verifiable references; and (e) added the Impact of the Changes section, including 17 verificable references. Making these changes and additions required a careful reading of parts of the pending legislation and a knowledge of patent law and procedure. I believe Wikipedia’s audience is better informed as a result of my contributions.

Please post the language in the article you would like me to revise and the reason you object to it to my talk page. ChagSameach (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My expertise is in research and verifying information per WP:V, which relies on authoritative, independent news reporting and other highly regarded expert sourcing that meets WP:RS to be used as references. A quick news search pulls up a number of such good such references, so I'll be happy to help edit this very long, complex article. There are also a number of Wiki projects related to this subject, so I can also ask for assistance from editors knowledgeable in this area. Flowanda | Talk 03:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a conflict of interest? Flowanda | Talk 06:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Flowanda - be sure to mention any details which I may have missed in the dispute resolution report. Thanks. -Cntras (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5,000 refs to the same generic page is not right: [16] Flowanda | Talk 10:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about Tennessee Center for Policy Research. It's in main space now. --Orlady (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! Flowanda | Talk 03:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy deletion of Natural products certification, which you tagged under WP:CSD#A7. A7 is only for use with people, organizations, web content, or individual animals. However, that article is about the concept (and various different current or proposed methods) for certifying something as "natural". As such, A7 does not apply. You are welcome to pursue other deletion processes if you believe they are appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Flowanda. I am incorporating all of your references in the Frenchman's Tower article.

What is driving me craze, is that I keep finding the same stories in various news reports, but none of the reports tell their source. The best I have found is a 1948 article by Cady, who interviewed the grand daughter. I suspect most of the other references stem from the 1948 article.

I very much appreciate the help you have given me.Wikfr (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your help would be great Flowanda. This article still needs a lot of work. I am most concerned about comparing Frenchman's Tower to to the wikipedia article on midieval fortresses. I don't know if this is original research, or if I am only stating the obvious. I have a reliable source that says the tower is like a fortress, and a less reliable saying it is like a midieval fortress.

I have more photos, and do not know how to arrange them.

I have not converted all of your references into footnotes.

I do not claim ownership of the article. It belongs to wikipedia.

Thanks for your help and encouragement. Please do what you can.Wikfr (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may have made a mistake. I got an edit conflict, and it said I would have to merge my entries. I thought it would be safer to cancel my entry, and tried to do that. I hope I did not cancel anything you had done. I don't quite know how this works.Wikfr (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few more things today and added some more photos. Please feel free to edit or suggest.Wikfr (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was impressed by your edit summary for your recent revert to that article. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Embarrassing. Thanks; I'll be more careful. Flowanda | Talk 10:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Higher Education Act of 1965, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Education (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

buyandhold.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Flowanda | Talk 11:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oil150.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Flowanda | Talk 12:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Binge drinking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Join Together (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Bobby Yazdani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dropbox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda! I'm impressed with your vigilance of external links and spurious references; nevertheless, I ended up largely reverting your edits to Pell Grant. Of the two links you removed, one of them (despite looking very much like a commercial site), is run by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, a government body. And while the latter is undoubtedly a commercial site, I thought the information about the amount of Pell money going to for-profit institutions was pretty useful information to have; their data comes from the Department of Education, at any rate. I simplified the information the citation covers, however, to avoid undue synthesis. I'm not dead set on this solution, though. What do you think? Best, BDD (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited NII Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ZD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, an editor Flyer22 has proposed that I be topic banned from editing the age of consent/age of majority articles. Do you agree with her proposal or not? She has been having long discussions with me on every talk page of every article I go to about how bad my edits, and she even went on another user's talk page to propose this, in order to end the debate I would like another editor to determine if a topic ban is appropriate, the scope of the ban, etc. instead of continuing this debate with her.--RJR3333 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has it backwards, and I am sorry that he has immaturely bothered you about this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on Herostratus's talk page that I should be topic banned, do you deny that you said that?--RJR3333 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said it right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herostratus#Mentoring "Herostratus, if you have it in you, will you weigh in at Talk:To Catch a Predator#Age of consent 17-18? I'm about > < this close to requesting a topic a ban on RJR3333, in relation to all pedophilia/child sexual abuse/age of consent articles. I certainly have enough evidence against him to be successful in getting it. But whether or not I request a topic ban, I will be reporting him because of that latest WP:Consensus-violating edit of his...if it is not reverted. As I stated on the article talk page, he has no respect for the talk page environment/WP:Consensus...and that needs to change. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)" --RJR3333 (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase what I said, Flyer22's statement was INTERPRETED by me to mean that she is very seriously CONSIDERING requesting a topic ban for me, she has not said she will definitely do it. What I'm getting at is, if she did nominate for one, which I think she has at least considered, would you agree with her or disagree?--RJR3333 (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated, you have it backwards. I meant your descriptions of what has been transpiring between us. You also had the topic ban issue wrong, since it has not been proposed. You should leave Flowanda and others' talk pages, as well as the WikiProject talk pages, alone regarding this matter. You are again acting inappropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since we worked together on BLP (Copperfield). Would you be willing to help me out on QR Codes? I'm looking add a reference to a patent which I believe is of encyclopedic value to note. Would you do me a favour and have a look at my comment on the talk page please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:QR_code any assistance appreciated! Amicaveritas (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. I've looked it over, and wasn't sure. You may want to take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Lawee may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• was the co-founder of [[Mosaic Venture Partners]]<ref>http://mosaicvp.com/ Mosaic Venture Partners]</ref>, a $130M [[Venture Capital|VC]] fund based in [[Toronto]]. Lawee started his career at [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mortgage underwriting in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tax return, Commission and Checking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alcoholic beverage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICAP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flowanda! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]