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)[