User talk:SFK2/Archive 2013

Welcome message from Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention

Hello SFK2/Archive 2013. Welcome to the English Wikipedia
Thank you for your good faith contributions! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles that all users must adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!
	Policies, guidelines and peer assistance		Help and Tutorials
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		How to start a page. If you want to create a new article
	Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look.		Help. The complete help guide
	Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns.		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space
	Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing or in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or anothereditir's talkpage. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Good Luck and happy editing! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:12john21

Hi. I declined to block this person for spamming. Normally we required the person to have received and ignored 4 or 5 warnings before we block. Obviously if they've used other accounts, then we count those warnings to.

Personally, as an admin who's done a lot of spam cleanup in the past, I prefer to not block spammers -- it's easier to track their behavior and spam domains if you don't force them to move to a new sockpuppet account. I find that blacklisting their domains is much more effective. (Note that we also give them multiple warnings before blacklisting). Blacklisting is potentially devastating to their domain since there are indications the search engines sometimes look at our blacklist when deciding whether to blacklist them in search engine results.

I encourage you to check out Wikiproject Spam and report spammers and their domains to the project's talk page using the templates there.

Finally, I also recommend you warn spammers on their talk pages and use the special domain-tracking templates Wikiproject Spam uses -- it helps tracking. See what I've done on the editor's talk page.

Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

PS - most importantly -- thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips. I will keep that in mind. -Crushspam (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Crushspam, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi SFK2/Archive 2013! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! Visit the Teahouse This message automatically delivered by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Selective deletion

Hi, thanks for your work to improve the encyclopedia. I noticed that you deleted a couple of citations from Chartered Accountant that had been added in 2009 by user:Ayager and later updated by me. From this version, I accept that citation [2] is of no value, and I should have removed it myself. You also deleted [6], which I thought was much the same as [3] [4] and [5], and allowable under WP:SELFPUB. I note that the updated page title was more spammy-sounding than when Ayager originally added it, in that the page title promoted a specific national institute rather than the qualification generally; was that the main reason for removing it? – Fayenatic London 16:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Also, it's only selective insofar as I generally do sweeps of articles and removes the most obvious spam/refspam. I'll go back and take a look. -Crushspam (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I put it back, but with the old external page title. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you were wrong about the spamming

The links i have given were from a site that was one of the very important site related to the topic. In that case it was about studio ghibli. Now the link i have given was from onlineghibli.com which is no less popular than nausicaa.net if not more. And there is no need to promote the site as it is even more popular than the nausicaa.net and it is the first result in the search engine.And i absolutely know about the no-follow system or rule of wikipedia.And that site actually verifies the character list as it actually gives pictures of the artists and it has many other infos like music pieces etc.And this site also has been there for 10 years so it is one of the most important reference site to the topic. The problem is i do not know how to use the reference template[and also do not have access to] that is why i needed to give the external link. We all need to improve wikipedia so review my suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibir2011 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are genuinely interested in referencing, please see WP:REFBEGIN, but I suggest that you read WP:RS before doing so. Mass insertion of links to articles is not the right way to go about it. -Crushspam (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But i did not insert a lot of links only one.Nibir2011 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You're recent proposed deletion

You recently tagged the article NEO Manufacturing and Services, Inc. for proposed deletion. I removed the template and added additional citations for verifications. I don't think it doesn't meet certain concerns of yours. -- Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, your article still doesn't pass WP:CORP. I will send it to AfD tomorrow if it hasn't improved. -Crushspam (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A Crushing barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For parsimonious pruning of promotional palaver. Robert Keiden (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -Crushspam (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing Citation as not WP:RS (On Payday Loan Article)

Somone suggested the question I asked there be asked directly to you on your talk page.

I am not sure why my edit was pulled as not WP:RS. I saw a citation missing and remember seeing that article posted up earlier in the day (on twitter or Facebook, don't remember). It had relevant info, lots of links to primary sources backing up the statements in it, and applied directly to the paragraph where the citation was needed. I looked for other sources and found none before putting that one in, and I looked over some of the other sources used on this page such as 27. "How Title Loans Work" and it seemed as valid as that source. If it doesn't hold up, I understand and will try and find a better source, but reading the article again, it seems as legitimate as at least [27]. Tstarnes (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Blogs, particularly those from commercially oriented websites such as NorthStarAdvance, are generally not considered to be reliable sources. -Crushspam (talk)

Barnard Castle School

That really wasn't spam. I added it. Farrtj (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

When did I say that it was spam. -Crushspam (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

quantum chemistry is a part of physics

I have no idea who are you or why you are calling yourself "crushspam" but what is important now is why are you claiming that that "quantum chemistry" is a branch of chemistry and not a part of physics. I know that for most people the name "quantum chemistry" implies that it is a branch of chemistry but think a little: chemistry was the study of the elements in the periodic table, of the reactions between substances...until the great discovery of atoms and molecules which identifies every element in the periodic table to an atom but chemists didn't have any idea of what is an atom or how molecules form (and why?) and this is the end of the story, it's the end of chemistry and if you still don't believe me, here's a sentence from the book "physical biology, from atoms to medicine" of the nobel prize winner in chemistry Ahmed Zewail: "...a statement that chemistry has been reduced to physics is correct in the well-defined sense of interactions that involve sufficiently small numbers of atoms, and is most likely to be also correct in principle, for arbitrarily large molecules, their large ensembles, and their reactions." and another sentence which specifies quantum chemistry (the domain of Zewail): "both conceptual and computational advances in a branch of physics called quantum chemistry extended this understanding to complex atoms and chemical compounds, including organic ones." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elie.nasrallah (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if there has been a mistake. -Crushspam (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User name

Hi, I noticed that the above two sections are from other editors who were confused by your user name, or perhaps took offence at it. It hadn't struck me before as a problem, but now I see that it may be misunderstood by less experienced editors. If you want to consider changing it, this is possible; see Wikipedia:Changing username. Best wishes, – Fayenatic London 11:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you are no longer named Crushspam. Hey, that makes twice in one day that my advice proved useful to someone! – Fayenatic London 19:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notable Companies

If you want to delete companies with no Wikipedia articles from different lists on Wikipedia, you would have to delete many large companies, especially Chinese ones. No wikipedia article doesnt mean non notable, it simply means no one have written an article yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aargh3 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability

They are non notable only to your subjective opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aargh3 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Where

Where exaclty on WP:NCORP does it say that a company can only be listed on a company list if it has a Wikipedia article? I have seen lots of list where most companies has no articles, some lists have almost only companies with no Wiki article, why dont you go and delete them also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aargh3 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Art

We are French students. We tried to say some words about the work of Laurent Gervereau and its analysis of Art and images. You deleted it

Could you say why ? How can you help us to say some words of this aspect and of the work of this philosopher and historian

many thanks

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plurofuturo, could you please specify the edit in question? Thanks. -SFK2 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Smashed Gladys

Who are you? Why did you say I could contact you if clearly I can not. I want to get rid of disinformation that has no sources or signatures. For some reason you only let liars and thieves post random information and block anyone who wants to correct it. Have someone contact me directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycato (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said such a thing. I don't know what you're talking about. -SFK2 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The RAP4 Deletion

Hello, Recently I have edited an article that can be found under the title "RAP4" and you said it had a "less than neutral" point of view. I would like to let you know that what was in the article was originally there before I edited it. Yes, I do agree it was a less than neutral piece of that article, which is why I edited it. But I have recently went back and attempted to undo the changes to the article, but you changed it back to the way it was. I left a note saying on that article " What is below is what was originally in the article before I edited it. I have contacted RAP4 and I have told them about this article and the reason I have reposted what was in this article is so they can have a chance to review and see what was originally posted." I checked again today and saw that once again you have changed the article and I think you are wrong for that because of what I have told you in that article. I am going to undo the changes you have made to this article and I ask please do not change what is said in it. I have contacted RAP4 and they told me that they were going to review the article and that they directly would change and add to it as well.

If you have any problems or questions you can contact me by sending me a letter like you did when you notified me of the changes you made.

Thank you.

~~Ilovepaintball~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovepaintball (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

See you edit the MHS page, thought you might like a kitty :D

Willbev (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Olyphant

I understand your point to delete the restoration - but this information existed on the page for a long time before (looking at history of edits). The Town embraces the legend. I will respect your "re-deletion" of the material. Once i'm a verified source, i'll re-add the content.

Danke

Rollback rights

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. James086^Talk 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -SFK2 (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WNS global Services

Dear SFK2

I have taken out all the links from the sheet can I know why is WNS global Services page is not updating ? Please let us know what to retain and what to delete so that we will do that accordingly. Looking forward to hear from you.

Thanks

Replied on your page. -SFK2 (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Grass Valley (company)‎ does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't have a summary. But I thought it would be pretty obvious why I removed it. -SFK2 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be if one inspected your change. But from the context of looking at your edit in a long series of edits (recent changes, your edit history, or an article's history) it is much more challenging to identify it as a valid edit. Vandalism typically lacks an edit summary. —EncMstr (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)`

Wouldn't having rollback rights be a good indicator....-SFK2 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I watch tens of thousands of articles and so review quite a few edits per hour. Have a look at Special:RecentChanges and review 20 minutes of changes and see if you notice any patterns. In general, the most difficult to initially evaluate edits are those without and edit summary.

Rollback privilege is a lightweight right. It is readily granted and rather easy to lose. —EncMstr (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

RainGlobes article

RainGlobes has been receiving national press and international press. It should not redirect to snowglobes. It would be like redirecting Coca-Cola to cola. Please explain what needs to be done to get the article re-instated. I submitted it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonbean101 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Han Kun Law Offices

Hi SFK2:

I have two questions regarding my article entitled "Han Kun Law Offices."

First, I don't understand why my article was submitted for review on February 4, 2013, as I had never submitted the article for review and was still editing it.

Second, could you please explain why the article was rejected. This article was meant to be a description of a law firm, not an advertisement.

I understand that you stated the reasons for rejecting was because the article read like an advertisement. However, when I refer to other articles on Law firms they use a similar format, adding even more information that makes it seem like advertisements.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyhuanghk (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

hello i need help to a create article for Christian Stephen Musician from Ecuador Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.15.137.4 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Here's a real barnstar for your anti-vandalism efforts. Keep it up! –TCN7JM 01:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TCN7JM! Cheers. -SFK2 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Art Dolls

Hello. I got a notification that you have removed a link I placed on the page "Art dolls" because it was considered a spam link. The link was for a website (personal-non profitable)regarding one of a kind polymer clay dolls, which is exactly what the article talks about,so that visitors of Wikipedia can see some art dolls that I have made (which by the way are not for sale). There is another link on the same page ("One of a Kind Doll Art")which leads to a website which is commercial/profitable. Why did't you remove that link also? I strongly object to the fact that I'm characterised as a spammer. Thank you very much in advance. Neoclaycreations (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Links do not have to be of a commercial nature to be considered spam. See WP:SELFPROMOTE. -SFK2 (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered to my question as to why the other link has not been removed, the "One of a Kind Doll Art". Why is that link not considered spam and fall under the self-promotion rule? It seems to me that you are making exceptions based solely on your judgement, and I'm really sorry to see such a tactic on Wikipedia. --Neoclaycreations (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The other link has also been removed as a spamlink.--ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lancanster, CA University of Antelope Valley

Greetings, why the continued deletion of our University from Lancaster, CA ?? Please explain.

68.183.90.192 (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you're using this as an opportunity to name-drop and advertise your university. -SFK2 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand. We are a University in Lancaster, CA. How can the other 3 schools stay on the page but not this one? /confused... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.90.192 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The content you added is promotional in nature. The university was already mentioned in the article. Since you are representing the institution, I suggest that you read WP:COI. -SFK2 (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"The university was already mentioned in the article." ?? No. UAV is a different separate school than Antelope Valley College. Antelope Valley College is a 2 year College. I am trying to add a different school to the wiki page, not mentioned in the article at all. UAV is a 4 year University not mentioned at all in the article. This is a different school than all of the schools mentioned in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.90.192 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. The university can be mentioned, but given your close relationship with the institution and the promotional nature of the past edits, I suggest that you take time to read the conflict of interest policy and WP:PROMO before going any further. -SFK2 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You! I will read both links. Is it ok if I repost the info without it being deleted again? Should I reword it so that it doesn't sound like I'm promoting? Can I repost the inf now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.90.192 (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should definitely re-word it. This is an encyclopedia - not a PR release. All will be made clear when you read the policies outlined above. -SFK2 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks!! I'll shorten the entry and will submit again tomorrow. Thanks for the tips and suggestions. 68.183.90.192 (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Neoliberalism does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! So, why remove that particular further reading item?? – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It was removed as part of mass refspam by the user. I don't suppose WP:DTTR means anything to you... -SFK2 (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

HKBUtube

Hi, may I know the reason why you marked 2 of my recent edit as spam? Thanks. Hkbutube (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I marked the edits as coi (conflict of interest) spam, as your username suggests that you are a representative of HKBU. The addition of links by representatives of a particular company, institution, organization etc. is generally discouraged. For more details, please see WP:COI. -SFK2 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Roland.zwaga

Hi, I see you reported me (Roland Zwaga) as a possible vandal, may I know why exactly? I've basically edited a number of band pages and added various links to the article texts. I wasn't aware that this can be deemed as vandalism, can you explain what I did wrong? That way in the future I can perhaps avoid this situation again. Thanks.

1099

I represent building ownership for Franklin Court located at 1099 14th Street. I am the on site property manager. I would like to discuss the article written entitled "1099 14th Street." The info listed within the article is biased and is not correct. I would like to remove the article. If this is not possible, I would like to propose modifications to the site. How can we do this? Thank you for your consideration. SDDCMN730 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)SDDCMN730

Reconsideration of supposed spam edit

You did make a mistake on your last edit on Christian Prayer.

It is not spam, but a highly relevant resource which highlights Christian Prayers (on-topic) stemming from The Holy Bible, and does not promote anyone human, business entity.

Can you please consider reversing your claim?...

Kind Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freechristianresources777 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Laser Harp

Hi SFK2, just curious as to why my Laser Harp edit was removed. Everything was 100% accurate. Cheers, Dean Friedman — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanFriedman (talk • contribs) 22:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the reverts of my reverts (tongue-twister) on the template pages. I had just contacted Tbhotch about that to get some feedback. I thought they were some forms of test pages and that I made a mistake in reverting because previous versions also looked vandalized (Sexy Reptila, for example). - Amaury (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem -SFK2 (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Again

You might have more knowledge on this, so I was wondering if you could take look at it. Do you think it's a legitimate concern or some troll? - Amaury (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate, they're annoyed with the automated revert by ClueBot NG. Regardless, it doesn't justify this edit so you were right in reverting. No offence but I'm pretty sure you could've figured that out yourself... -SFK2 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And none taken. But apologies if I seem to be annoying you. =) - Amaury (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. -SFK2 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a relief. XD - Amaury (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SFK2. You have new messages at Narutolovehinata5's talk page.
Message added 10:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cviček page

Could you please STOP reverting the changes I am making to this page, I am referencing all of the new information I am adding as you can see, so there is no reason that you have to do this. I am trying to improve this page and much of the current information is outdated and not referenced at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolf1534 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The content is perfect acceptable, and the referencing too. It does make it slightly harder in that much of the information is in Slovenian which I have to translate into English. I am still adding the various websites to the reference list which takes time. However do you not agree that the content I am providing is not better than what is currently there? I will keep adding to the page, and you are welcome to look at the page once I am finished with it completely, but just now you're making it really hard for me to improve the page. If you still disagree please feel free to get a third party to settle this discussion. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolf1534 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay fair, enough and I took that part out however as I have already said I am adding referencing to the content, so it is not original research, its perfectly valid content that can be found from many trusted sources. If you think a sentence isn't worded in an acceptable way then edit that sentence. How is it helpful to remove all of the work if only some of it needs a bit of work? So unproductive. Like I say, I am just building up the page and it is already a lot better then what currently exists which is actual 'original research' with not one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolf1534 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For what you do. Great anti-vandalism work in this wiki. Keep it up. Cheers and happy editing Pratyya (Hello!) 10:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I do what I can. -SFK2 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

please help

Hi , i feel like you are much more advanced in wikipedia thing, would request you to please correct my topic, as i am new in this particular domain, Please help me to create a proper wikipedia article on Anuj Saxena.

my email id is vivekyadav@elderhealthcare.in

I am from Mumbai, india. my cell number is 9769374044.

please help, would appreciate.

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piramal Enterprises Ltd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Q1 and Q2 (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) 10:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Data remanence edit

Hello SFK2, Did you remove the reference I added because it was in Spanish? I can't see any revison history or change log. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hard2bit (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The link in question corresponds to your username, which suggests that you may have a conflict of interest. -SFK2 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. The source is good though, so if you want to validate it, we can still have a reference to the article in other way, since there are no more references to that section. CheersHard2bit (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Cindy Hill Content Revisions

SFK2, Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. The text that I have added is currently on State Superintendent Hill's Wikipedia page. All of the content comes directly from the State of Wyoming's official page for the statewide elected officials.

The content that I pulled down earlier was NOT objective in the least. The MusikAnimal used articles that have admittedly been biased to make assertions about the intent and actions of the elected officials in Wyoming that the elected officials (particularly Gov. Mead) have never claimed. Showing that MusikAnimal intentionally tried to put up negative content that was unsubstantiated. I do not work for the State Superintendent, but I am interested in an unbiased Wikipedia page for her. I found this move by MusikAnimal to be below the belt.

Please review the content I have added. You will find that it comes from the State of Wyoming's website. If you have any other comments or suggestions for me I am always willing to hear them.

Thank you, WyoRepublican — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyoRepublican (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Source

There are no source of the title os Avril Lavigne fifth album studio Do not undo is there aren't source. Is just rumor. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 01:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just the just one is not suficient. walmart.com is not official source. Is just rumor, we need to wait... Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 01:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes on Real insurance

Hi, could you please explain with reasons as to why you deleted my recent changes on Real Insurance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunksood (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my changes

The same with Health Insurance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunksood (talk • contribs) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning some of my edits

Hello SFK2,

Thank you very much for your message. I am new to this whole wikipedia business. Now I would like to know how to proceed in the future. I am a research assistant for Dr. T.V. Paul. You mentioned that I may be in possible conflict of interest because I am writing about someone I know or work for. While I understand, you may have noticed that all I did was add books and articles for further reading on subject T.V. Paul has written about (the national security state, balance of power theory, deterrence theory, asymmetrical conflict etc.) I am not trying to paint him a particular light, but simply adding hi scholarly contribution to the relevant topic. What can I do in the future to make sure my edits are not going to be deleted?

thank you very much Coercive Diplomacy (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Kernodle Middle

Thanks for catching my incomplete reversion of vandalism in this article. I had reverted several instances already but more than one IP address user has now jumped in. So I did not get the prior user's vandalism with my last reversion. Sorry. I usually try to look for that but I think I was lulled by the fact that the persistent vandalism was coming from one user. Donner60 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

re:citations

Hi. If I understand you properly even if one book covers two or three topics I should only add it to let say the main focus of the book to avoid populating the page as your guideline stipulates. Correct? Thank you for your time. Coercive Diplomacy (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: external link to YouTube video at the Landaulet article

I notice you have deleted a link to a YouTube video showing a Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman Landaulet from the external links section at Landaulet. Could you please let me know which of the nineteen guidelines at WP:ELNO this link violates? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #1 and #4 (but primarily 4). I fail to see how the video provides an unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. The fact that it is in 3D (or HD) doesn't mean much in terms of the overall value of the video which is essentially an amateur recording at a car show. Also, the username of one of the editors (DrHirudo) corresponds to the name of the Youtube channel in question - which suggests that this may be a conflict of interest (i.e. self promotion) in inserting these links. The beginning of the video also contains a link to a website (that corresponds to the username) that appears to be an personal website on technology and gaming. -SFK2 (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1 - a unique resource beyond what an FA would contain... video footage with multiple angles and close-ups; no similar footage exists in Commons.

4 - Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. Of course an intention of the video is to promote the website, but is that the main intention? Or is the main intention to show the viewer several views and details of the 600 Pullman Landaulet? I'm not sure that a three-second opening credit is a blatant enough promotion to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on my reading of WP:YT, WP:ELNO, WP:ELPEREN the general rule of thumb is that these links are conditional upon the copyright status, officially relation to the subject and non-promotional in nature. While copyright isn't an issue here, it is clear that the link is not officially related to the subject given that Landaulet is a type of car and is not controlled by a single entity. Per WP:ELPEREN:"Videos must be carefully screened for copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK, WP:YT). The creator of the video must be verifiable as an official channel for the source.". Given that the link in question is 1) not from an official source and 2) has underlying COI issues - it is probably best to remove it altogether. If you believe that it is a valuable inclusion you can go to WP:RFC. -SFK2 (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: external link to YouTube video at the Landaulet article

Hello, I am the creator of the YouTube 3D HD video of the Mercedes Benz 600 Landaulet and I noticed the messages about it on your talk page. I created the video, with intention to show this very rare Laundalet 600 model to the outside world. My intention is not to promote my website (which is not automotive related anyway), but to show the car to the people. I am the copyright owner of the video and also I have permission to show footage of the car to the public. The video links in the beginning and in the descriptions are for copyright reasons anyway, because many people re-upload my videos, often copying the exact description. The summary at the beginning helps me to find this videos easily and take them down. The link in the video proves that I am the creator. While re-uploading videos in not much of an issue, the issue is that the 3D and HD effects often get destroyed during such re-uploads, giving very bad results. Of course I can remove the links in the description and in the video if that's an issue.

But... Currently YouTube has the best Stereoscopic 3D videos player, which means that uploading the video to Wikipedia is not an option. I respect your experience and I will not give any more links to unique footage of rare and not so rare cars on Wikipedia. People who have enough interest will find the videos on YouTube anyway.

Good bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHirudo (talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My Tie It Up edits

Why are you deleting my posts in the Tie It Up article? Is it not useful information to know who took the pictures that Kelly Clarkson put in her video? The article specifically states that she requested pictures from people. I am one of the people that she used a photo from. I can understand not putting a link put just putting who took the photo should be allowed. I am new to editing a wiki page but not allowing pertinent info that is discussed in the article seems off to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temple Photography (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Useful to whom? Your business, or the viewer? See WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:COI, WP:SPAM. -SFK2 (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sure both. Do you not think that people might be curious as to who actually won the Kelly Clarkson contest? What's the difference between this and listing the winners of Survivor or Millionaire. I am curious as to who took the other photos so I am sure other people are, too. I don't mind not having my link but I do think people want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temple Photography (talk • contribs) 05:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You just couldn't resist. What did you think would happen? -SFK2 (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Links

Hi darl, I'm not sure if I'm messaging you the right way, so sorry if this isn't the right forum! Just wondering why you thought the links were inappropriate? x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:248:1800:9509:ED16:6C2B:1C12 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you specify the link and the article in question? -SFK2 (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry babe I'm not sure! I just got a message from you on my talk page. (Edit: it's in my history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:248:1800:9509:ED16:6C2B:1C12 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The repeated addition of commercially oriented links such as the 'Lifebroker' website is considered a form of WP:CITESPAM. -SFK2 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to spam anybody! I'm fully aware wiki links are nofollow so there's no point in posting irrelevant links anyway. I would never want to screw up Wikipedia and would certainly never spam or remove links or anything like that. If you had even read the links or information I posted you would have seen it was relevant. Not to mention, the article clearly stated citation was needed. Hope that clears it up for you love, so sorry about the hassle xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:248:1800:9509:ED16:6C2B:1C12 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Need your inputs

Thanks for reviewing the article I wrote on PlayGroundOnline. However you tagged that certain words are promotional. Can you please let me know which part you found promotional so that i can make the edits appropriately. Thanks in advance. I really appreciate your help Meera devine (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of Carrick Capital Partners

Thank you for reviewing the post for Carrick. I was wondering which parts of the article you found to not be neutral or verified by 3rd party sources. Any input you could provide to help me clean up the entry would be very appreciated. Nlxndrdlv (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The rationale for the decline is that it reads like an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. -SFK2 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

your revert of Ankit's edit to Tourism in India

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit made by Ankit on 23 August to Tourism in India. Could you please explain why you reverte dit? His first paragraph seems fishy to me too, but the second paragraph sounds interesting and is accompanied by a source. Also, I think new editors might be discouraged if their edits are reverted without explanation. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems promotional in nature and the second paragraph is about a theatrical release and hence not directly relevant to the subject. I thought that my edit summary would be sufficient... -SFK2 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I didn't spot the word "advert" in the edit summary until now, so I should have paid more attention. Anyway, thanks for explaining. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

your message on my talk page

It was I that warned the spammer that he was engaging in edit war and spouting 100& original research nonsense. I DID engage the spammer in the Talk page but was continually ignored. I guess you prefer Wikipedia to contain obvious falsehoods rather than concerned editors.

The "Prolegomenon" section at "Spengler's civilization model" is 100% ORIGINAL RESEARCH and the Spammer keeps removing my OR tag that I attach to it. So what am I supposed to do to prevent the continual spamming of "Spengler's civilization model" ?

Clearly no moderators care to protect the page from this OR, anti-Semitic, anti-Asian spammer who calls himself "97ytkljgg789".

   Ben Ammi (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Ammi (talk • contribs)  

I don't get it. How is he free to post OR ? It's verifiably and obviously uncyclopedic, has NOTHING to do with the rest of the article and is ANTI-SEMITIC AND ANTI-ASIAN aren't you registering that? Ben Ammi (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It even makes predictions about the future: "In the end of 2014 AD, the synergy of new debt will decrease to zero, at which moment the world will undergo an electrical breakdown—an instantaneous tunnelling to a more negative energy state." How very encyclopaedic.

Ben Ammi Ben Ammi (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

sorry

i didn't think it would actually work, i will use the sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmetlol (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk

We are currently having a discussion in the #Wikipedia-en channel on Freenode about calling my edit's vandalism if you would like to join us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.113 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. -SFK2 (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please never accuse me of vandalism them vandalize again then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.113 (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Again? When did I ever accuse you of vandalism? -SFK2 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Online Brokerage

Hi, As I was discussing with you in talk, I was thinking an Online Brokerage article would make a nice addition to Wikipedia. We had a lot of content in BB24 and we could base the article on that. But I don't want to work on another article that will be marked for deletion. So I thought best to collaborate with you on it?--Cube b3 (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there is enough content to warrant a separate page. Perhaps you should add the content to brokerage. Keep in mind though that Wikipedia is not meant to be a guide, so the advice-type information is not really appropriate. -SFK2 (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Key School

Fuck "point".

Do you have evidence (ie refs) to show that it is "known simply as "Key" by members of the community, it is one of several independent private schools in the Annapolis area. The school is attended by all age groups, with about 750 students in the whole school. Key is a member of the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS)"

... etc etc?

If so, add refs,

If not, you have no 'authority' to revert my edit.

Please undo your edit

Wikipedia should surely present {{WP:PILLAR|FACT]]. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:BURDEN 88.104.27.75 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:POINT - particularly example #5 -SFK2 (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.    Thank you.

WP:OUCH. -SFK2 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Facts. You got 'em? Refs. Sheesh, how simple is it. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Captify

Blocked indef. But reports like that, while we can handle them at AIV, are really better directed to WP:UAA (since the account name matched the subject of the promotion). Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Noted -SFK2 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The entry is objective and factual. The optimeasure is a new of way of measuring for bra fitting and is a breakthrough based on plastic surgery principles. It is not promotional but factual. In the same article there are references to companies such as Rigby and Peller, Goddess, Elila, Milena Lingerie, Fruit of the Loom, Nordstrom, Neiman, Triumph, Panache, Bestform, Freya, Curvy Kate, Bravissisimo, Fantasie, Marks and Spencers, Evans and ASDA etc. If my entry is promotional then all of these entries are as well and you should insist that these are removed as well. As stated I believe the entry is objective and factual. I will be guided as to how I edit my entry (please feel free to give advice) but I do feel that for educational purposes the entry should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulkhanna108 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that your username corresponds with a commercial website [1]. Please read WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:COI. -SFK2 (talk)

Pharmaceutical Marketing

Why do you insist to remove useful external links for pharmaceutical marketing article? On the other hand, you keep journals which need subscription! without subscription they are not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmarketer (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist to remove useful links, and not discussing ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.215.227 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've said on numerous occasions that the links were removed due to WP:ELNO. It was put forward that other links (journals) may need subscription in order to be viewed, so those were removed as well for consistency. I don't know what else there is to say. -SFK2 (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Shall I be your fan to follow your words at different occasions?! I have read your reference, but I would like to invite you to read the links wisely before taking your decisions, as you reviewed the other links (journals). You will find that some of them do provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain e.g. the gallery of pharmaceutical advertisements which is directly related to pharmaceutical marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmarketer (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You conveniently left out the last part of WP:ELNO #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Visual media would be incorporated within a feature article so there's no need for those external links. Also, some of the links such as Medical-brochure.com are sponsored by firms with commercial interests, which is likely to violate #4 of ELNO. -SFK2 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sponsorship does not mean that it's intended to promote sponsor's website, esp. after visiting medical-brochure.com website, I did not find a visual media designed by the sponsor i.e. promo-pharma.com.

On the other hand, what about adphar.net and healthyskepticism.org ? why did you removed them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmarketer (talk • contribs) 10:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The external links section is not intended to be used as a general depository for links related to the topic. There is a specific guideline set out in WP:ELNO which states what should or shouldn't be included. As I've explained above, the Medical-brochure link does not provide a unique resource because visual media would generally be incorporated within an article. The removal of Promo-pharma falls under the same rationale as it describes itself as a "visual database". More problematic though are the commercial interests of Promo-pharma as it seems to be geared towards those working within the advertising industry: "AdPharm is intended for advertising agency creatives, account services and also to pharmaceutical companie's marketing and communications specialists" which is contrary to ELNO #4, #5. Even if it does not explicitly "sell" any product or service- such links are still considered to be spam and are not appropriate for Wikipedia. As for healthyskpeticism.org...well I doubt that you actually care whether it is removed or not. -SFK2 (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no doubt if healthyskpeticism.org is useful, why to remove? I feel that you have some kinda discrimination not more. I will return healthyskpeticism.org till you have a proof to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmarketer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For helping to keep Wikipedia clean, right after you created your account! K6ka (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the thought. -SFK2 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained Automated Deletion

By not providing a legitimate explaination for the complete removal of this information, this is action can be seen as an act of vandalism. WP:VAN.

Please do not remove information, that is educational, that is directly relevant to this wiki page of braissere measurement. This information, under wikipedia guidelines is not referencable as 'spam'.

Please do not misuse Twinkle, as an automation service, for removal of legitimate information.WP:TW#Abuse. SFK2, please refer to your talk page, before deletion of valid information.

As you have been informed, please do not remove information, that is educational, that is directly relevant to this wiki page of braissere measurement . This information, under wikipedia guidelines is not referencable as 'spam'. In this case, the removal information, that is educational, that is directly relevant to this wiki page of braissere measurement, can be seen as an act of vandalism WP:VAN.

Please do not misuse Twinkle, as an automation service, for removal of legitimate information.WP:TW#Abuse.

Please familirise yourself with wikipedia guidelines, before the repeated removal of information from Wikipedia WP:PGCHANGE: see Substantive Changes: TalkFirst information.

Meditation artistic retreat

Why are you revering my editing without any justification?

I created an article about a world Program of artistic residences which includes an exhibition in an Art Gallery in Bangkok (it simply cannot be commercial at all since it's carried out by a NGO), I linked to Artistic-in-Residence article (in order to di-orphan the article) and you erased it. You also erased from "Contemporary Art", when from this Program is going to be created a Collection of Contemporary Art that is going to be exhibited in Galleries form all around the world. Could you explain why you erase these contents? Specially, without any clarification or justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kno ho (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for you to publicize a particular event or organization. It's that simple. Regardless of whether the retreat is not-for profit or otherwise, your actions still constitutes as spamming. -SFK2 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cover Up JApan Today

Cover UP in Japan Today page is not unverified Teomotto (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for you to vent whatever issue you have with Japan Today. Please observe WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. -SFK2 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Fashion Net template

The links to Fashion Net are not spam. Shousokutsuu (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding the same link to 200+ articles is not spamming? You're just doing it for the public good? In any case, the links violate WP:ELNO #9 'Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds'. -SFK2 (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's correct -- these links are not spam. Fashion Net is to the fashion industry what IMDb is to the movie industry. Shousokutsuu (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll refer you again to WP:ELNO #9. -SFK2 (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The pages on Fashion Net linked from Wikipedia are not "individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." WP:ELNO: "Links normally to be avoided. Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Official_links Official links: "2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." Then, have a look at http://www.fashion.net/designers/gaspard-yurkievich/ for instance, or, http://www.fashion.net/influencers/rankin/ Shousokutsuu (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Fashion.net is not an official link for anything other than its own Wikipedia article. Fashion.net is a search engine; ELNO #9 specifies that search results pages and search engines are to be avoided. It doesn't get any clearer than that. -SFK2 (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Fashion Net and the pages linked to on fashion.net, like http://www.fashion.net/designers/gaspard-yurkievich/, do indeed comply with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Official_links "2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." Fashion Net has a search engine, but isn't one -- it is a curated guide aimed at fashion insiders, or, as they say themselves, "Curated by some of fashion's most celebrated editors and opinion-leaders, the site is the number one hub for global fashion." (http://www.fashion.net/about.html) I trust you will confer with prominent Wikipedia editors familiar with the fashion industry. If you need further proof of Fashion Net's notability and position in the fashion world, do let me know. Shousokutsuu (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two conditions that must be met according to WP:ELOFFICIAL. The first states "The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article." Do any of the companies control the content rendered on the results page? No, because it is simply an aggregate result of online references to the said company. How the site is used or who uses it does not change the fact that it is fundamentally still a search engine. -SFK2 (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you're making statements based on assumptions. Investigate further, and you will find that nothing on Fashion Net is aggregated -- all texts are exclusively written by Fashion Net. All text on Fashion Net's profiles is original content, with material supplied directly by the subjects, such as quotes and favorite links, like Rankin's "Fashion Net is my first port of call for global fashion" and Gaspard Yurkievich's PERSONAL DESTINATIONS IN DIGITAL FASHION LAND: THEMALCOLM.COM "Eclectic and snobbish: Fashion, culture, photography, music, hotels, etc. There is still a fresh vision and it's just nice to look at it to be aware of what's going on. What's sexy for hip young guys...." THESTYLEROOKIE.COM "I'm not a kid anymore and that's why I like to follow this one...." PURPLE-DIARY.COM "The diary of the singular parisian Olivier Zahm; a mixture of pure fashion snobbism and personal sex night life ... funny to follow when you're Parisian and that you know the victims!" NOWNESS.COM "Very arty videos; discovered this website looking for Sabisha's video and Peter Lindbergh ... somes are pure nice brand editorials and other more personal...." Shousokutsuu (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You referred to the website as a search engine when you created the WIkipedia page. The website describes itself as a search engine in numerous sections. It's not ambiguous. While admittedly it offers additional features to a standard search page- it still functions primarily as a search engine. -SFK2 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fashion Net is a curated guide to the world of fashion as defined by Fashion Net itself, "Curated by some of fashion's most celebrated editors and opinion-leaders, the site is the number one hub for global fashion"; the external search results are only from the sites it lists and as such does not violate WP:ELNO #9. All the pages linked to from Wikipedia are profiles of the subjects, not search results, all exclusive content curated by Fashion Net and the subjects themselves. As such, Fashion Net does not break any Wikipedia policies, the links are not spam, but useful indeed to those who came to read about the subjects on Wikipedia. I request that you revert your edits and put the links back in place. As you may have seen, I am one of very few long-time Wikipedia editors thoroughly familiar with the fashion industry and I aim for all of my edits to be neutral and unbiased, and hope for mutual respect. I have looked at your contributions and see we have the same goal of maintaining a highly accurate and authoritative Wikipedia. Shousokutsuu (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:ELNO #9 states that "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds" should be avoided. There is no exclusion clause that says that sites may be considered depending on the parameters used or how the results are generated or organized. And for good reason too, because that's precisely how a search engine works. As I said earlier - you've referred to the website as a search engine. The website refers to itself as a search engine in numerous sections. I see no reason to believe otherwise.-SFK2 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite any definitions elsewhere (and Fashion Net's profile on Wikipedia certainly needs to be updated), Fashion Net -isn't- a search engine, it -has- a search engine and the pages linked to from Wikipedia aren't search results, they're hard coded pages that can be searched, just like those on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel isn't a search result, although searching for "chanel" on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=chanel) will point directly to the hardcoded page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel This, by nobody's definition of the term, makes Wikipedia a search engine, as I am sure you will agree. Fashion Net's search function may include external sites, but only sites listed on Fashion Net. Shousokutsuu (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll continue the discussion on the COI noticeboard. -SFK2 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Candidate for reviewer?

Your name popped up when I was working through the Special:PendingChanges queue. I was wondering if you ever had, or had considered applying for the reviewer permission? It is not something you would ever have to actively use, but in situations such as this it would be useful for those of us patrolling if your edit had been automatically accepted. Just something to think about. Cheers, Crazynas ^t 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Thanks. -SFK2 (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Waterfall Chart

RE: Linking to a personal blog site is not permitted per WP:ELNO #11. Also, your username suggests that you are editing on behalf of a given entity which constitutes as a possible conflict of interest. -SFK2 (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

SFK - thanks, I am still learning the rules. Because I created the linked website, it is not permitted to link to it, understood. Would you mind clarifying something? On the waterfall page,

1. http://blog.ideatransplant.com/2008/08/how-to-create-mckinsey-waterfall-chart.html is a link to a personal blog.
2. http://www.alainblattmann.com/index.php/excel/waterfall-chart-bridge-chart is someone's personal webpage.
3. http://www.youtube.com/v/m2_wxkv2djg?version=3&hl=en_US: was included by someone with the comment "I have created the video to demonstrate how easy it is to create a waterfall chaft."

Why are these links allowed? Do they not also violate WP:ELNO #11?

Thanks for your time,

FortMarinus (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but each link is reviewed individually and would be removed if found to be inappropriate. -SFK2 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

KCDas87 article

Hi, can you please elaborate why my article has been rejected? this article is on same line with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_Group please suggest the changes required for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Artha&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCDas87 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

SecureAuth‎

Dear SFK2, thank you for reviewing my article about SecureAuth. I have added the text in my sendbox to correct it. I would appreciate if you suggest the changes required to make it more neutral (to remove your "advert" tag). You can add your comments right within my text, highlight inappropriate facts in bold or change it otherwise. Welcome to my sendbox! :) —Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 15:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello SFK2, I have not received your reply, so I have corrected the article myself. My edits are described on the history page. I have also added explanations on the talk page referring to the "advert" tag that you added. I used the article McAfee as an example, because these two companies have similar desctiptions (specialization, products, etc.). So I ask you to remove the tag or describe any additional changes required. Excuse me for being so pushy, but I think that all these tags should be used to improve the articles, not to just hang on the page over the years. :) --Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 11:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear SFK2, thank you for editing my article about SecureAuth. As I have double-checked all the facts in my text and have not received have any new comments from you, I have claimed responsibility for removing the "advert" tag. I hope it's OK and you will assume my good faith, taking into account my repeated requests, openness to discussion, and additional explanations on the talk page. --Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 10:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Joseph

Thanks for reviewing my new article about Joseph Joseph.

I've added a reference to an article in Director magazine about the company, which I think covers them being notable. Is that enough, or do I need to dig for more? The company is certainly as notable as, say Nest Labs.

As an aside: I've edited Wikipedia for more than a decade, but I don't do so very often. So you know, I found the "speedy deletion" a bit intimidating and fast. I guess you get lots of spam articles these days :(

It must though be putting off people making genuinely useful new pages - you can't just quickly make a stub any more, for others to fill in later. Francis Irving (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that articles take time to develop, there is a bare minimum that must be met (i.e. assertion of notability). I would suggest using WP:AFC if you are unsure about the suitability of your article. -SFK2 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Bankcreditnews

Your undo on contactless payments page 19

09, 10 February 2014‎

Your undo is unwarranted. I was citing information from a Google News approved, reputable online newspaper. The information I cited was relevant exactly to the nominal subject of the article and the section (History) of said article. Adding updated information to Wikipedia articles and citing legitimate news sources is not spamming. It is the essence of what editing Wikipedia is. Thank you. Carpalclip3 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

your "spamming" campaign against Bank Credit News legitimate citations

I responded:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Response_to_the_premise_of_the_allegations

I'm open to engaging in dialogue. But I've concluded that the premise of your campaign is unfounded. If you can show me that it's not, I'll be happen to listen. But I intend to undo your undos to my edits. Our rights to edit Wikipedia are equal. You do not have more rights than me, and I do not have more rights than you.

Respectfully, Carpalclip3 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Heartland Payment Systems - crossing the line

On February 5, I added header re: litigation; paragraph about a lawsuit filed by the nominal subject recently.

The same day, you deleted my source (an article from BankCreditNews about Heartland Payment Systems suing Mercury Payment Systems) and replaced it with a different source (a Yahoo News article about Heartland Payment Systems suing Mercury Payment Systems). The articles both discuss the lawsuit. In your edit summary, you say "replaced it with a neutral source."

Go look again at the Yahoo News link you inserted. Look at the top. The article is a copy of a BusinessWire press release from Heartland Payment Systems! (at the very top of the "article" it says "BUSINESS WIRE", a press release distribution service, and it has Heartland Payment Systems listed as the provider of the story!!). I cannot see any conceivable argument that a press release ISSUED BY the company in question is more "neutral" than an original news article written ABOUT that company.

It appears that you are attempting to provide cover for your anti-spam campaign against BankCreditNews.

I want to be friendly and cooperative. Maybe you can help me add ADDITIONAL NEWS SOURCES to the information I've cited, rather than just trying to take every reference to Bank Credit News off of Wikipedia. That seems very odd to me.

Respectfully, Carpalclip3 (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied on the spam project page. -SFK2 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanking for the corrections and changes you made; will ensure in future of the recommended reflect while making any changes and edits on Wikipedia. Thank You again! Say2max (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanking You!!Would take care in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolstar (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This has reference to the article named 'Eduwave JEE' which was deleted by you today on March 13, 2014. Please explain to me the exact reasons of doing so, when there are many other article by the names of the institutes which are lying in the wikipedia database. Why is it so that only this article was deleted and not the other ones. I am utterly angst and frustrated by this malicious act of yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EduIITprep (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the notifications left on your talk page? -SFK2 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hedge Fund

Hi, SFK2. You removed the list of notable hedge fund firms from Hedge fund recently. I am thinking of restoring it, because among other things, it means there is now no mention of Long-Term Capital Management in Hedge fund. That was a hedge fund that collapsed in 1997 and caused a significant financial crisis. Do you have you any objections? Wildfowl (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

These sections are unnecessary and prone to spamming. If Long Term Capital Management is notable enough to warrant a mention then it should be integrated into the prose. -SFK2 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What does "spamming" mean in this context? Presumably adding non-notable items to the list. I have Hedge fund in my watch list, and I'm sure other people do, and that provides some protection against non-notables appearing. It seems weird to have an article on hedge funds that does not give some examples, especially when some of them have articles on Wikipedia. I would vote for re-instating the list unless there is some relevant Wikipedia policy to the contrary. Wildfowl (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mainly WP:SPAMBAIT, such as subtle name dropping. As I said earlier, if the company is that important in the scope of the topic then it should be integrated into the prose. -SFK2 (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied userpage

Thanks for letting me know; it seems that the other user has removed my userpage content from their page. That's very odd, though. I've speedily deleted a few of that user's new articles before, but I'm not sure why that inspired him to copy my page, especially since our editing interests don't seem to overlap. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My only concern was the claim of being and admin. Otherwise it's not really a big deal. -SFK2 (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Memelord

Hello SFK2, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Memelord, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It doesn't look to me as though the term was coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally, so A11 doesn't apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Diamonds as an investment

Could you take a look at Diamonds as an investment? I recently became aware of your work with an edit you made to Wedding ring which I initially reverted, then you undid my reversion, at which point I looked more closely and saw that the link was not to harvard.edu but to a company with a url: harvard.[name of company].edu.

The entire article Diamonds as an investment is hugely problematic. On the one hand, diamonds are indeed a legitimate investment vehicle, but only when bought and sold in wholesale quantities (generally in the neighborhood of a million dollars worth). In those quantities, they can be bought and sold at 100% of wholesale, minus 2-4% brokerage fees and commission at time of sale. A traditional rule of thumb is that they shouldn't be more than 1-3% of your portfolio. That pretty much limits participation to institutional investors and extremely wealthy individuals.

When sold in less than wholesale quantities, they are not a liquid asset unless sold to pawnbrokers for 30% of wholesale, resulting in catastrophic loss. For unqualified individuals who have "invested" in diamonds, the goal in liquidating is not profit but loss mitigation.

Unfortunately, there is a dearth of reliable secondary material on this subject. Instead, there are only large numbers of companies trying to sell "diamonds as an investment" to unqualified buyers. Their sales pitches talk about everything but how to sell your diamond. They go on about how diamonds are formed deep in the earth, how they are sorted and graded, how prices have gone up over the years, but not how people actually make money investing in them.

This entire article is in the style of such sales pitches.

Thank you. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too difficult to weed out the refspam. -SFK2 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I have been editing Wikipedia for three and a half years and have created over 1000 new articles (including some I have expanded from minimal stubs). In that time I have never had an article tagged for speedy deletion until today. I am currently working with some other editors on improving Tiger to GA, and decided to write an article to turn a red link in the Tiger article blue. So I started Care for the Wild International and went to have breakfast, only to come back and find you had tagged it for speedy deletion within an hour of its creation.

You on the other hand do not appear to create content but seem to specialise in tagging and proposing speedy deletions. Looking at your recent contributions I see that you do little else. At 8.21 this morning, you tagged Andrew Spear and went on to tag both my new article and my talk page, and the time was still only 8.21. WOW! What a lot of consideration you must have given to my new article and whether it met the speedy deletion criteria! Maybe you would like to reconsider the article now that I have enlarged it, and perhaps you should slow down a teeny-weeny bit? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Being a regular does not make you immune from CSD critera. Whether you believe me or not, I actually did wait for you to improve the page. I believe assertions of notability is a very basic requirement for new articles and as a regular you should be aware of that. Also, I fail to see how tagging Andrew Spear article with {{notability}} is relevant to this discussion. Maybe you could elaborate? -SFK2 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging the Andrew Spear article was only relevant because it set a time span of less than a minute in which you came to a decision about my article. Criterion A7 states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance" and the article stated at that time "Care for the Wild International is an animal charity, a non-governmental organization established in 1984 and based in the United Kingdom. Its stated aim is to "rescue, protect and defend animals in need around the globe".[1] It was therefore incorrect to tag it for speedy deletion on the basis of criterion A7 as, "if the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied".

If I had been a newby, I might have been completely turned off by your negative approach. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but stating that XYZ is a charity established in [year], is simply not good enough. A7 definitely applies, the only thing that is perhaps debatable is the time frame. But I do believe an hour is sufficient time to elaborate on the topic. -SFK2 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I am a bit shocked by the speedy, speedy deletion process. Perhaps I should have stated that XYZ is an international charity established in [year], but that was implicit in the organisation's title. In the category [Category:Animal_charities] there are a lot of much less important organisations such as Homeless Animals Rescue Team, Our Pack and Silva Project and I was surprised that my article was promptly deleted after I had objected, expanded it and provided some outside sources. It is a salutary lesson to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -SFK2 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been reinstated after I added some extra outside sources. An international charity is intrinsically a notable subject and IMO, the article should not have been tagged for speedy deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work with the dead links and primary sources. -SFK2 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on your conversation, but my home town, San Francisco, has a population of less than one million, making it only a medium-sized city. However, we have huge numbers of artists, art galleries, and art museums (most of them not notable) and huge numbers of nonprofit organizations. Many of them are international charities. Most are no more notable than wineries or microbreweries. Anyone with a few thousand dollars can start their own microbrewery. They just rent professional kitchen space by the hour, hire a graphic designer to design a label, a print shop to print it up, a bottling plant to bottle it. Then they give it away for free to friends and relative. Many wineries are the same thing, except more expensive, typically five or ten million for a vanity winery. Lots of retired business people have that kind of money. Only a tiny percentage of those wineries ever achieve notability. Same for international charities. You fill out a bunch of forms to get your nonprofit status, find some people in other countries who support what you're doing, and there you are. These things are not inherently notable. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Credit card

Why would you rather have a resource be directed to a 404 than having the genuine original document hosted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatMiler7 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the WP:REFSPAM concerns, if look at the source you'll realise that it doesn't actually support the sentence. -SFK2 (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you reverted the change instead of removing the citation. As for the Aeroplan and Air Canada additions. I don't see what warrants you to take down the citations without verifying or taking down the added content, the citation was added with an update to the article, if you don't think the information is correct, why don't you remove the entire paragraph added instead of simply removing the citation from which the information was provided from? Referring to WP:REFSPAM, this author is authoritative on the subject, please go over the authors work, if you can find one more reliable, please inform me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatMiler7 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi SFK2

Did you know Sheikhpura is a Magahi speaking district of Bihar not Maithili speaking district? Why it is included in the Maithili state as a Maithili speaking district? Sheikhpura should be included in Bihar not Maithili because it is a Magahi speaking district not Maithili. I hope this error is corrected before Bihar is split from Maithili. Hajipur is also not a Maithili speaking area. Bhojpuri is spoken in this district. The no. of district in Maithili is 31 while only 6 in Bihar. This is because even those districts that is not Maithili speaking district is being wrongfully included in Maithili as a Maithili speaking area and being carved out of Bihar. Let us not rush into splitting Bihar. . Let us first correct this error. Let us first include these districts that are not Maithili speaking areas to Bihar. This will help Bihar increase little bit in size which is very important. In its current state, Bihar will become very small in size, which is not helpful for Bihar. Bihar will be better off if we add more districts to it especially those that are not Maithili speaking area but incorrectly included in Maithili state as a Maithili speaking area. Let us not become greedy and become unjust to Bihar. Let the voice of those who care for Bihar reach to the government so that we can stop this injustice happen to Bihar. contribs) 02:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But you should place your comments on the corresponding talk page. Or, be bold and make the changes yourself. -SFK2 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello I'm cpugeek82, the article about the pcb worm was intended as an 1 of april joke. (only to exist for today, it wasnt a secret, i fact it was on the talk page, but if there is no place for a joke here, you can delete it. I don thave any wikipedia experience, so i cant upload pictures and make links and fancy up the joke a bit, so it was just an idea, and i hoped that some wiki editors would maybe like it and take over the idea. But i understand if its against the policy. (CPUgeek82) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpugeek82 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified undo

Hello

I am really frustrated that Wikipedia have acted in a way of undoing hours of work, just because my username reflects my business. I am trying to update our Academy's informtion on this useful website as a member of the staff at the Academy and you have undone all my work because of potential "conflict of interest". If you had read the page, you will have noticed that was not the case.

I spent hours of my working time to create the content that you have just deleted.

The page is incorrect and out of date and if that is the kind of content Wikipedia want then that is fair enough, but as a legitimate organisation we are trying to keep our brand current and relevant across all social media and information websites.

Can you advise? Redcaracademy (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to correct factual inaccuracies or change out of date information. But keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a PR platform. You can make those changes without the promotional language and fluff. -09:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

About ByteGate page

Hello. I created this page because I thought that people who speak Persian can read this page to know more about the website and of course I'll try to release English posts so others can know more about the site. this is my first page on wikipedia and I didn't know that creating a page about a website will delete it. what I have to do? AmirrezaN (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:YFA and maybe re-create the page through articles for creation. -SFK2 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

web development

Hello, Got your message, wasn't aware about this. Thanks for your help. Will not update it again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatibirsingh (talk • contribs) 02:41, April 9, 2014‎ (UTC)

Regarding my content marked as spam

Hi there, it was my first time being a contributor on wiki and i'm usually against spam and never knew that my content or cited website could be considered aa spam. Can you please help me correct the issue so i can return my content back to wiki? I would really appreciate that.

Thank you!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azguy101 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you reverted some of my changes. I' quite confused. I went on the help desk and made sure these links would be ok. Also BuzyBody even thanked me for the edits when reviewing them. Do I need to rephrase this? I'm just adding a url so people can see voting records and other actions just like they might want to see bio info from votesmart or additional wiki info at ballotpedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenHayes89 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"BuzyBody" may not be aware of your two other accounts that have been blocked for spamming [2][3] -SFK2 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My contribution removed

Hi again, i did not get a reply from you regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_hosting_service&diff=604368795&oldid=604350677 you've marked as spam? The wiki page stated clearly "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)" and i would like to know why my contribution was considered spam from your end? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azguy101 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, and the content was inserted in a manner that is common in refspamming. -SFK2 (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, man, Are you wikipedia mafia???

Show me a reason, why did you delete 2 of my editions in 2 seconds??? Did you red them. What "spammed" did you find in my edition about Egyptian Jewelry? What "spam" did you found in my edition of birthstones page??? Just because I've showed http://www.birthstonesonline.com/ as a source??? This way it is not a FREE encyclopedia. This is corrupted encyclopedia.

Did you read Birthstones Online. It is provided additional information about "Birthstones" subject. You'll not find any site with too much information about this subject. Yes, I'm a reader of this site, and I like it. Why do you think I can't use it as a source? Why your sources are right and my ones are BAD??? I'm informing you, that you're not right. This is "Mafia" style....

How do you mean I can start to contribute in Wikipedia without sources??? I need to use sources. Who is judge which sources are right and which are bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromgalaxy (talk • contribs) 08:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For this edit, see WP:ELNO. For this edit, see WP:COPYVIO. -SFK2 (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam?

Hello SFK2. You marked my contributions to wikipedia as spam. My apologies if what I wrote was not in line with wikipedia guidelines. I am just a little bit confused now because of course I am close to the topics I write about. I would not write about topics where I feel that others have much better expertise than I have. So for me it is kind of logical that I am close to a topic. Anyway ... I guess I didn't get the idea of wikipedia right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstanze Riede (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Per conflict of interest guideline: "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest". Your position as an employee (or more specifiically the marketing and sales manager) of evranch, combined with your edit history makes it quite clear that you are here to advance outside interests. -SFK2 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi SFK2, thanks a lot for explaining your position. Does that mean that an employee of a - let's say - pharmaceutical company couldn't write about a new medicine they developed? Because there would be a conflict of interest? So wikipedia would rather not have an article than having it written by the most knowledgeable source? I won't complain about your deleting my content from the article because I am new on wikipedia and I have a genuine interest of learning the rules. I would just like to mention that your tone wouldn't have been necessary. You could have simply told me that what I was doing was not in line with the guidelines and why instead of giving me a "final warning" before you gave me any "warning" at all. "SFK2"? What does that mean? I personally believe that if you communicate like this with contributors you hurt the idea of wikipedia more than you support it.

It is not my position, it is based on the guidelines developed by the Wikipedia community (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI etc). If you have 'genuine interest' in learning the rules, then why did you reinsert your company website on the Pinyo Suwankiri page right after I explained to you to problem with your edits? Doesn't sound very genuine to me. In any case, I don't think you're in any position to lecture me about hurting the idea of Wikipedia. -SFK2 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello FSK2, I did not reinsert anything. At least not that I would be aware of. I never received any comment about my edits before I received yours. Anyway. I guess it's time to let this go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstanze Riede (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi SFK2, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Done -SFK2 (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Please look at the instructions at WP:CFD for nominating categories for discussion. You did not complete the nomination, nor tag the category page, for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_23#Category:Audacity_Innovative. I have fixed them both for you. If any of the instructions at CFD are hard to understand or do not seem to work, please let me know. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Keezmovies

Keezmovies seems to generate most hits on pornstars compared to other websites. Why did you remove its article? --David Hedlund (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NWEB, there's no real claim of notability so I've redirected the page to MindGeek. -SFK2 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

My changes on erectile dysfunction are reverted

Hi there i noticed you have reverted my changes to the erectile dysfunction article and removed the link that i have added. I am a little confused about that because the link i put there is no different that the links that are already there. It is a link to an article that explains more on the condition. I didn't have any affiliation to the site, just found it while browsing and thought it might be a good addition to the original wiki article. Anyway please be clear about the reasons why this change was reverted. Vnetwik (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a guideline for the use of external links - see WP:ELNO. -SFK2 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I read the guideline but still couldn't figure out why the link was removed. You might try to give a specific reason when links are removed so that user like me will not repeat the same action again. Thanks anyways.Vnetwik (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You've just deleted my entry???

Hi, if I may ask why? This page is about ad servers - what I did is added a list of ad server companies / platforms... btw, the list was based on LUMApartners and had a link to their industry landscape visual. LUMApartner is very much independent source - they are an investment company that evaluates technology providers (only companies that are worth mentioning end up on their chart!). Point1 - ad server platform list was relevant to the article and theme Point2 - reference provided was valid and completely independent -- so why do you remove the update ??? Be polite about this and either reply to my email hholod@gmail.com with proper explanation or restore the update. Thank you.

Please stop vandalising legitimate pages I've created and edited

Reading your comments on here, I see that you do this to a lot of people. The point of Wikipedia is to have everyone involved. You cannot revert everything anyone else puts up, it's very rude and annoying. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzealand123 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Why can you not edit things out you see as against wikipedia's rules? Not completely delete a page as it's very annoying, especially when I've spent a long time putting it all together. Can you please remove the speedy deletion and then remove anything you see as spam. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzealand123 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.146.36 (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a guideline for the use of external links within articles - see WP:ELNO, WP:SPAM. -SFK2 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)::

You're obviously a bully, stop it. 173.63.177.192 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You've just deleted my entry (Source) on the page for Vehicle Insurance

Hi, I noticed you just deleted my entry (source for Canada) on the page "Vehicle Insurance", although if you check out the German section, there is also a source mentioning a comparison site. I actually helped the user as I linked to a source talking about Minimum Coverage Requirements by Provinces in Canada. For Germany you link to http://www.finanzierungsratgeber24.de/ all in German, which I can thankfully read but the User? Do you think it would have been more helpful to mention the help center? http://www.lowestrates.ca/insurance/auto-insurance-faq Obviously I want to make sure I am doing the right thing here.. I am not spamming, I want to help. Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto30 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Before inserting a link consider WP:RS as well as your intentions for adding the link. Can't comment on the German link but if it fails WP:RS criteria then it too should be removed. -SFK2 (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You reverted my external link within minutes on the page for Cloud Computing

And I was somewhat baffled. I reviewed the WP:ELNO guidance and, contrary to your note, my link qualifies. Please specify the criterion on which you based your deletion. Thank you. Scott.somohano (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not WP:ELOFFICIAL of the subject, also ELNO #1. -SFK2 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely response. I'd like to ask you to reconsider under WP:ELYES, and here's why. First, the article under question is not about a specific "organization, person, website, or other entity," and hence, no official site is possible under item #1 of WP:ELYES. (And thus WP:ELOFFICIAL is not applicable.) Likewise, the article is not "about a book, a musical score, or some other media," so item #2 under WP:ELYES is not applicable. However, my link qualifies under item #3: The link I added includes deep technical content about cloud computing that could not be included in this article due to its depth & complexity. Finally, I'll submit to you that ELNO #1 is, at best, a vague and extremely subjective editorial standard. Even so, cloud computing is a vast topic... much more than can be contained in any single article -- even a featured article on Wikipedia. So, anyway, there's my request to reconsider. Thanks again. (Edit: Oops, forgot to sign.) Scott.somohano (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. -SFK2 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello You've deleted my contribution for about 10 odd pages

hello SFK2

i have posted the directions to reach a given location, using an alternative currency that is being used as an address in India, my intention wasn't to spam wiki, nor would i be interested in increasing the search-ability, its a genuine problem that my contributions were solving, any ways its upto you to rethink on the same lines for the common good of the plebeians of this world, remember just information isn't worth it if it cant take you to the place wiki talks about. Anup.thati (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Thank You Anup Kumar Thati

Given that you're an employee of Zippr, you should probably read WP:COI, WP:NOTPROMO. -SFK2 (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sex for Fish may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• ] sex for fish exchange increased the spread of HIV/AIDS rapidly between the years 2002-2005.{[cn}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Watch

Hi there, I edited a page on Wikipedia recently. In order to add value to Wikipedia, I changed a dead link with a quality relevant source. But you not only reverted my work, you marked it as spam. I'm not sure how can it be spam. Can you please compare both the source pages and explain? FYI, I'm not promoting that particular website on Wikipedia -- I've no relation (direct or indirect) with the website. Thanks Hellobaitadi (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an archived version of the dead link. -SFK2 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know that there is an archived version of the dead link. Do you mean we cannot replace a link with something more valuable that add value to Wikipedia only because there is an archived version of the page available? It seems you are a fan of that particular site/page. Why cannot you compare the content value and relevance of the both the pages?Hellobaitadi (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My revision should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the original link - I was simply stating that technically the deadlink could still be used due to the archived version. Actually both sites are of dubious value according to WP:RS and I am in the process of finding a better source. -SFK2 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your integrity. As far as the topic 'History of Watches' is concered, I found this page (http://bestwatchbrandshub.com/history-of-watches) the most detailed and reliable than any other source out there. And, that's why I made that change. If you agree, you can always revert it. With this, I want to close the issue.Hellobaitadi (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Epicor Software Company Edits according to official Corporate Profile

Dear SFK2, I received a message that my edits will probably be removed due to bias. I am an employee, that is true, so, I would like to ask you what would be the best way to keep it updated? The changes I made were only in the Summary Box - Number of Employees and Revenue sections, which I updated according to our corporate profile: http://www.epicor.com/Company/Pages/CorporateProfile.aspx. Please advise. Seva.Markov (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)