User talk:Setomorp

Welcome!

Hello, Setomorp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! My76Strat 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Carol Barnes has been reverted.
Your edit here to Carol Barnes was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9TW_PqJwRk) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Setomorp. As the banners on the page say, you shouldn't add material to an AfD after it's closed. The article's talk page is the right place for that or, even better, write a section of the article that uses the new sources. I don't think any harm has come this time, but you might want to revert that edit [1] anyway. Dricherby (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise it had been closed and the decision was Keep. Great news!Setomorp (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. To be honest, I think it was pretty ridiculous for somebody to nominate that article for deletion, since it's very well sourced and, as you demonstrated in your comments, it's easy to find even more sources. Dricherby (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but it seems to be standard practice of the Wiki "police". It makes sure only those with the toughest resolve survive I suppose ;-) Setomorp (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know this person in real life or have any connection to them? The bit you referred to was actually removed by another editor, along with a couple other sentences. However, since you brought it up, after reviewing the sources it is simply not a verifiable fact that we can include. I've checked all the sources and they all repeat the same mantra that she "is not known" to use manipulation, so it's obvious most of the sources are simply copies of a couple original articles/blog posts. You may wish to read WP:RS and WP:V. Read them very carefully, please. Thusly, the previous editor was correct to remove that sentence because it is simply not verifiable. If you can find a reliable, verifiable source that can legitimately back up that claim, then by all means it should be included. But after you brought it up, I went and looked through every single source I could find, most of them which don't conform to WP:RS/WP:V, and there is simply no evidence or proof of origin for the claim. Do you understand? If you want to assert that Rogers does not use manipulation in her photography, then find a reliable source that can verifiably prove the claim. Otherwise, it's just hyperbole. Laval (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also left additional comments on the talk page for the Rogers article, and recommended you also read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, which also contains additional links of interest regarding WP:BLP and the stringent qualifications necessary in "sticking to the facts & just the facts". As you may or may not know, biographies of living persons are held up to very high standards of sourcing & verifiability, and this is also of course to prevent the misuse of biographical articles for the purpose of self-promotion, advertisement, etc. Laval (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I made mention of you on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Christy Lee Rogers. Feel free to provide a rebuttal there. Laval (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Setomorp, Please can you advise the reason for the revision of the page Dan Wagner. All additions to the page were clearly sourced and validated.? User:Ol king col

Sentomorp works for a PR agency according to this, https://twitter.com/setomorp, part of World Wide PR. Given this, you should be aware of the new terms and conditions of wikipedia regarding paid editing, and also about the rules regarding company/organisation accounts. 151.226.140.40 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.140.40 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 11:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]