User talk:CliffC

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for your effort to raise the quality of the Emmett Till article.

This user helped promote Emmett Till to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. I'm so not worried about the Doctor. In the time I've been here I've seen worse. I wouldn't have alerted him that we can see his IP to see what he does. If he got his U blocked their network administrators would have his balls. Been wanting to play with the invisible ink for a while, thanks for the opportunity. I do not expect to see him on my talk page again. SlightSmile 14:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that a few days ago you did a huge cull of material on the above article (rightly so). It subsequently came back and I have so far done half a job at cleaning it up. My big issue, though, is that big chunks of it are paraphrase of a copyrighted website and one bit was a direct copy. I've removed the direct copy and shuffled sentences etc around for much of the rest. I've told both editors involved of the problem but, since they re-introduced it after your cuts, it wouldn't surprise me if it re-appears again. Just a heads-up. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, nice job on the trimming and tagging, you are more patient than I (I liked your one edit summary "remove triplicated statement"). I'll probably be removing most of the "Construction" section as promotion later. As a side note, last July a lengthy blurb promoting Grandma and the site was added to the artist list in Outsider art with this; a discussion that might interest you ensued at Talk:Outsider_art#Editing_List_of_Outsider_Artists. Best, CliffC (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks. I have no great interest in the subject in general & came across it because an error was being thrown in the maintenance lists. But this is a classic example of going to fix one specific issue and hanging around to sort out a heck of a lot more. You were right to remove the section you refer to above. I feel that there is more yet, and will be returning to it. I can't help but think there might be some WP:COI issues here with the editors. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, that's why I have so many weird articles on my watchlist.

COI? I think of that article's editors as Grandma Prisbrey's Grandbabies. --CliffC (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to be more reasonable in your reverts on this page. You are reverting a lot of valid edits, and if you fail to cease, I will report you to WP:AIV. 128.84.220.223 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are now making smaller edits and offering better explanations, good. That's how to make changes "stick" here. Are you one of the interns in the Palmisano picture? --CliffC (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Re the record label spamming by User:Operawalker, I sometimes restore his edits when there are no other recordings listed in the article, as in Bianca e Falliero. It's a legitimate label, and they often record very rarely performed operas but they're not helping their case with spamming their recordings to very single article. They're driving me nuts. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, yes indeed, he/they need to behave. Have added my comments below yours over at WP:RSPAM#Opera recordings. Best, CliffC (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello CliffC. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Doufeu to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, you removed my addition of the article I created Harry Clarke - Darkness In Light in the See also section of the Harry Clarke article saying it was spam. It isn't spam, I added it there because Amandajm advised me to do so. LennoxRobinson (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in this message from Amandajm they made a general statement that links regarding individual artists don't belong in the see-also of Stained glass, and suggested that you add it to the see-also of Harry Clarke, which you did here. I removed it because of its promotional tone and because it was added to the top of an existing list, often indications that someone is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. I wasn't aware of Amandajm's suggestion.

Harry Clarke - Darkness In Light already has a link in the "Sources" section. However, according to policy WP:SEEALSO, a see-also link also seems allowable because there is not already a link in the body of the text. I will add one. Best, CliffC (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are these links spam or not? . The issue is whether or not this link is or is not considered to be a spamlink - www.all-art.org/.

If not then I will re-add them...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really part of the Spam project, although sometimes it feels that way. As an interested observer, yes, I would call them spam, and perhaps refer him to TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo. It's interesting that there is an old spam report for the site. I would answer his This-is-not-spam objection made to another editor here with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and explain that we're all volunteers and we may miss a bit here and there. Keep up the good fight, CliffC (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi CliffC. I'm not sure why you removed the photo of the money dance. I reverted your removal. There is no link to the author at the entry so I can't see how you would consider it spam. Are we not allowed to use photos that were donated by professional photographers? I'm just curious. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I followed the breadcrumbs a little bit and I agree with you that the user had a conflict of interest when adding the link to his site to Wedding photography, but I don't think the money dance photo is a COI or SPAM addition. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as you probably noticed among the crumbs, Jayrowden's sole three edits to Wikipedia were to spam two articles with links to his site and to add this photo to Wedding. Clicking to enlarge it and view the description page shows the "Source" is a link to his site. Every other contemporary photo on the page is sourced as "Self-made" or "Own work", not by a link to the photographer's website. This is spam behavior. I don't know the process to get the photo removed from Commons, but I promise to work on it. Meanwhile, I'll be deleting it from the article again in a while, if you do not object. Best, CliffC (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do object. As far as the entry is concerned there is no SPAM. Nothing links to his website from the entry directly. If there is a problem with the photo please deal with the photo itself. I personally felt that the photo was a nice addition to the entry ... much better than many of the other photos. I don't think its very good at all "as a wedding photo" (in the way that it would be a successful marketing piece), but it illustrates a tradition very well. So, please work out the photo situation in Commons and leave it in the entry unless it is deleted from there. I think if it is possible to get the photo retagged in a way that doesn't like to the website that would be the best solution, since, again, having the photo itself would be an asset. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Retagging sounds like a good idea, I'll look into it. Are you okay with adding an 'upright' parameter ([[File:Greek Wedding Photography Money Dance.jpg|thumb|upright|Example of the traditional 'Money Dance' at a Greek wedding.]]) to get the photo to scale in size to the others on the page? Best, CliffC (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know much about photos and photo formatting. If you want to do that it sounds good to me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; basically it would end up with the same surface area as the others. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I'm also not a fan of SPAM, in general. I think we get way too much of it here in various ways.Griswaldo (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked at the help desk about retagging and a friendly admin took care of it himself. Best, CliffC (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cliff- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I respect this site immensely. The website I referenced is for the the Racquet club which was a historic hotel/club for movie stars in Palm Springs CA that is no longer in existence and has been demolished.

CelebrityArt (CelebritiesArt (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Please understand that when a new editor's first two edits are to add the same link to different articles, it sets off our spam alarm. Spam is a big problem at Wikipedia. You added a link to gotopalmsprings.com/racquetclub.html to Jane Russell and Daryn Hinton. Links added as references need to support statements made in the article (as well as being links to reliable sources). I don't see any mention of Jane Russell at that page, and the only mention of Hinton is a statement describing the site as "Made By Daryn Hinton". Gotopalmsprings.com seems to be someone's personal site ("...myself Daryn Hinton as a babe in arms , my sister Darcy..."). Please don't use Wikipedia for promotion. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cliff for taking time for the explanation. I hate spam in my own life. I appreciate you and how much work being a good policeman is to keep the site great. CelebrityArt (CelebritiesArt (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Hi Cliff; Please help me understand. I have nothing to do with this book or it's promotion. I put the authors website because it is part of the wiki template. It has 3 pictures of Power in different stages of her life in airports or getting on airplanes. There is one of Power with her sister and her mother flying to Europe. Which is the text I referenced to. Please enlighten me :) I want to be a good contributor to this community Thank You CelebritiesArt (CelebritiesArt (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

It's not necessary to provide a citation for non-contentious claims such as that the mother of sisters Romina Power and Taryn Power "took them to live all around the world". If you feel a citation for this statement is really needed, I suggest you find a reliable source, that is, more reliable than a book of celebrity photos. --CliffC (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cliff for the lesson. I thought a picture was worth a thousand words but I get it now. Thanks for your time (CelebritiesArt (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Hi CliffC, I made a few changes to the Southwestern article because the old one was incoherent and biased. Some parts of the articles looked like a transcript of a rambling monologue, and the vast majority highlighted negative views on the company. I'm actually a university student who worked as an intern for Southwestern last summer. If some claim that I have a conflict of interest, they are entitled to their opinion. However, I spent my entire summer working with them, the job was incredibly challenging as the recruiters made clear to me, but my managers were very supportive throughout, and I came away with unparalleled experience with business, people, and life in general. I've witnessed some other interns quit the program for its challenging nature. Unfortunately some of them decide to spread negativity about the program afterwards. I came across the old article and thought that was regrettably uninformed. If you read closely, many of it's claims lacked references as well. I felt that I needed to balance the article for the time being, but thanks for notifying me, I will provide references when my midterms are done with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.221.113 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, one man's "incoherent and biased" is another man's "grounded in fact and reasonably balanced". I hope you looked closely at the edit summaries I left with the reversions. I didn't see in your edits any citations to reliable sources, and in at least one case existing properly-cited material was removed. There seemed to be an element of original research as well. Also, it is best to stick to crisp, plain-English terms (like 'door-to-door', not 'direct sales'), and eschew vague terminology like "a healthy profit" and "take charge of their summer experience". It might help to review Talk:Southwestern Company to see what issues have arisen with the article in the past.

I'm glad you had a good experience at Southwestern. Because you worked for Southwestern in the past, or work for them now, you do have a conflict of interest. That's not a bad thing, just a reality; based on that guideline you probably should not edit the article directly but should instead request any changes at Talk:Southwestern Company, stating clearly what improvement you are suggesting, with citations. I put a welcome template on your talk page. --CliffC (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cliffc, you left me a message in my page. Not really sure if I got what you meant with spamming. I don't intend to spam or anything. I was only giving good referral links to the readers. This is regarding my edits in Laser and Sales. Anyway, since you remove it already, I won't contest, hope you are happy. Thanks and kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talaga87 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe 'spammy' wasn't the best word where the link was intended as helpful, my apologies, but I suggest you review WP:EL and the general tips in the 'Welcome' box on your talk page before adding more. Best, CliffC (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you removed my recent addition to Advance fee fraud article. I wish you could have left it for a while longer. It was supposed to be a lesson for some self-righteous, antagonistic and unhelpful forum moderators. I intended to remove it after about a day. Just enough time to make sure people on the forum got to read it. Now that is not going to happen and the forums won't get any better or more helpful. The forum moderators will persist with their high-sounding and useless comments on threads.

So I am going to go ahead and edit that section again just to make it less insulting to Nigerians and more truthful. It will be nothing like I did before. Just giving you the heads up. Midnightauthor —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

These are not "forums", or message boards, they are encyclopedia articles. Your suggestions for improvement have a better chance of being seen, and left in place, at Talk:Advance fee fraud, so long as they are civil and not directed at one person. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I commented on your criticism on the talk page of low back pain. Please check it. cheers --Blueeye1967 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the McKenzie method per se, so I don't have an opinion on your talk page comments. My reverting edit summary "old version says 'the evidence suggests that it [the McKenzie method] is not effective for chronic low-back pain', new version says 'IS effective for chronic low-back pain', with different cites - please explain on talk page" was just pointing out that those edits had introduced a contradiction that needed to be resolved or explained. Best, CliffC (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, so there should be a discussion on that leading to d decision whether to change the information or not.--Blueeye1967 (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I won't be participating in the discussion. As I say above, I don't have an opinion on the issue, I just don't like seeing contradicting material introduced to Wikipedia without explanation. I'm sure discussion at Talk:Low back pain will clear it up. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit of punctuation-with-quotes back to British style in the Emmett Till article? The subject of the Article is American, so it's logical to use US style. (It was mixed US/UK before I did anything.) I understand the logic of the UK style (punctuation outside quotes), and I don't mess with it on UK-related articles, or articles that aren't particularly UK or US related and have consistent UK style. 75.0.178.233 (talk)

Yes, it can be confusing to see an apparent mix of quotation styles in the same article, but Wikipedia uses logical quotation marks, which are neither American-style nor UK-style, they're just logical. Reviewing Emmett Till, I am somewhat surprised to see that it does not adhere strictly to the logical-quotes style, so you might want to undertake a project of correcting it, but I suggest that first you solicit comments at Talk:Emmett Till. The article has many close watchers.

I certainly understand what you were trying to do there, as I am one of the first to point people to WP:ENGVAR to enforce inter-article spelling consistency. Best, CliffC (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Crossed out something I said above, I see now that UK-style quotes and logical quotes are one-and-the-same. --CliffC (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in you knowledge of Dog Training and Behaviour. when you chose to edit a training aid did you bother to find out how widespread it is. Why should it not be included in other dog training aids such as head collars and e collars. Are you suggesting you are the expert and know about the jingler and even have first hand knowlege.

The training aid in question is in general use and over 25000 have been sold in the UK alone. That makes it a significant item that is in general use then why should it not be listed. Or was it the fact that I listed it? Knowledge is knowledge whoever lists it. By all means edit things you may just know about but do not edit things where you have no knowledge or expertise.

Doglistener (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't promote "The Jingler", or any other product, here on Wikipedia. Reviewing your past edits I see than you were promoting the Jingler site www.doglistener.co.uk back in 2006. I suggest that you review the material at the blue links on your user talk page and at the very prominent link to TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo at the top of this page. Then, if you still don't understand why promoting your product here is unacceptable, post at Talk:Dog trainer and we can continue the discussion there where other interested parties can contribute. I have just now added a template with more information about Wikipedia to your talk page. --CliffC (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reminder on how to edit. I've only been on Wikipedia since 2006 or so, so a periodic refresher is helpful. The text removed on the page for E-Meter had been called into question on its talk page, was unsourced and obviously POV, so I felt assured in removing it. I'll be sure to check in with you before making such edits in the future.PacificBoy 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Scanning the history of your most recent 500 edits, it doesn't appear that you have ever left an edit summary. Please read closely the {{uw-es}} template left on your talk page. A missing edit summary is the first sign of vandalism—without one, others watching an article have to spend time deciding whether your edit is a vandalism or not. Please respect the time of your fellow editors. --CliffC (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Do you happen to know how prevalent are e-mails that do not comply with CAN SPAM but nevertheless have unsubscribe links? Otherwise, I think it's very confusing to say that the main function of an unsubscribe link is to add addresses to further mailing lists when that is expressly prohibited by CAN SPAM. As per the FTC, "Once people have told you they don’t want to receive more messages from you, you can’t sell or transfer their email addresses, even in the form of a mailing list." RJaguar3 | u | t 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it is a given that spammers can't be expected to respect CAN SPAM or any other FTC regulations. I restored the statement and reworked its wording based on that reality, tagging it 'citation needed' because I knew citations would be available. I have found several, samples here and here. I'll add the second as the requested citation in a moment. If I understand your objection; you may wish to expand the current sentence to something like "However, clicking the link or button confirms to the originator that the e-mail address used was a valid one, and in the case of an unscrupulous sender may open the door for further unsolicited e-mail", or such, but it is indeed risky to click any link when the email source is unknown. Best, CliffC (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling out those sources. I'm still inclined to believe that most e-mails that purport to be CAN-SPAM compliant (with an unsubscribe link) are in fact compliant, and the first link was helpful in demonstrating that. I did some rephrasing of that section, so you might want to take a look at that. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That looks okay, but I'll probably fiddle with it later on to make clear that the validity of the clicker's email address is confirmed to all senders both legit and non-legit, and note briefly the other exposures mentioned in both cites. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have proposed EB be merged into the IBM article. —Eustress ^talk 17:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Terse is good, I always say. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. I hate a blabby dab page.  :-) --CliffC (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you've been reverting those curious "cremated" edits. So far I've come up with 6 different IP-editors with closely-related numbers.

They are:

• 4 March User:85.103.53.116 "cremated"
• 17 March User:85.103.31.236 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.103.31.236

2 "cremated" edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_Russell&diff=419220705&oldid=419217704 and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_Russell&diff=419215313&oldid=419149081

• 19 March User:85.103.163.230
• 28 March User:85.103.177.246
• 5 May User:85.103.7.32
• 23 May User:85.103.51.113

Just wanted you to know. Shearonink (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't realized these were all from one block of IPs and likely the same person. If he continues to be a pest I'll look into asking for a range block, but for now it's easier to just flick this fly away each time he lands. Best, CliffC (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Another in Turkey, 85.108.250.17 (talk · contribs)

Really new to this, saw you recently did an edit to Mystery (pickup artist), was trying to edit the pic description, which I noticed had myself and another friend in it, but looks like the edit didnt take at first, then the troll reverted it back. Able to help me make sure it is factually correct? thanks! BravoPUA (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (PST)

Your question is probably better asked at Talk:Mystery (pickup artist) where it will be seen by more people. I'm confused because your edit history doesn't show that you have ever edited Mystery (pickup artist), so it will help if you can explain more clearly there what happened (or didn't happen). A look at Revision history of Mystery (pickup artist) might help you compose your question. --CliffC (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Cliff I do not like to use the exact same wording as a source due to concerns of plagiarism. That said that source dose specifically mention beer. I have added another review article that specifically looks at the epidemiology of gout and discusses the finer distinctions of alcohols and there effects. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I worry about copyvio too, but lazily figured six words in a row would be okay.

When researching diet issues during my first bout a few years ago I found a site, I think it was a hospital, saying that up to two beers (pints) a day should be safe. But it was in Australia. :) Best, CliffC (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Cliff, I'm an editor at the Asbury Park Press trying to update our page. Nothing in it is overtly promotional, just informational. Can you stop reverting it? thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman221B (talk • contribs)

If you are an editor of the paper, you have a conflict of interest and probably should not be editing the article. I suggest that you propose changes at Talk:Asbury Park Press where they will be seen by all those interested. --CliffC (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

On 5 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giggle incontinence, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that giggle incontinence, the involuntary release of urine in response to giggling or laughter, may be related to cataplexy, a sudden transient episode of loss of muscle tone often triggered by strong emotions? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Article was not deleted. It is appropriate to at leats mention Follicular transfer and this clinic being the only one in the UK. It should be mentioned briefly but the "advert" removed as I've done. There is nothing wrong with mentioning notable clinics in relation to a procedure.

I've improved Follicular unit extraction and think it is now satisfactory and in the appropriate context to mention this clinic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi CliffC...I noticed you posted a discrepancy in the Medical Tourism page. I'm not sure why you considered it advertising, this is only a stat that supports the rest of the article. MonescoMonesco (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please review the material pointed to by the blue links on your talk page and at the top of this page, especially references to Links normally to be avoided. The page you linked to is a commercial one, not a reliable source to support statements made in an encyclopedia. --CliffC (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cliff,

I have attempted to communicate with the person who deleted my information and it appears there is some affiliation with Institute of Functional Medicine. I am disappointed that once again the site is attempting to sneak in a self promotion for a training program in functional medicine (The Institute of Functional Medicine). I provided a significant piece of history on functional medicine as written about in the textbook titled Functional Medicine. Unfortunately, my information was quickly deleted in favor of self promotion. I simply don't know how to handle this. I am learning the rules but it appears there are double standards and obviously motivation toward self promotion and websites listed with no credibility. Very frustrating. Can you offer any help in how this can addressed? Attempting to contact the person making these changes has not worked. Again, thanks for your help. Sincerely, Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.210.152 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just guessing here, but User:Jmh649 (click on that link to view his user page) may prefer to discuss the subject in a more widely watched venue that's frequented by medical professionals such as he and yourself. He has suggested at User talk:Drgrisanti using WT:MED, the talk page of Wikipedia's Medicine project. He is an administrator here with 40,000+ edits and seems to me unlikely to be promoting anything for his own benefit.

Oh, when you post to WT:MED, don't forget to log in first so that your userid and not your IP address (as above) will appear when you sign. Signing with four tildes (~~~~) produces your userid and a timestamp. Best, CliffC (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Naveenpf

naveenpf (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cliff,

I don't fully understand why the advert tag was put on the University of Utah Press wikipedia entry. The type of information included there is the same as that on most other University press wikipedia pages. There is also the comment about the external links. We don't have an external link section, so I am guessing that you are referring to the information sources which link back to the U of U Press website. Since Wikipedia requires all information to be sourced, I thought we had to include those references. I have noticed that many other University press wikipedia pages do not reference this type of basic information. Is that okay? To summarize the question, how can we make this page comply with wikipedia guidelines?

Thank you for your help, Plumu2010 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your question abut the {{advert}} tag is best asked at Talk:University of Utah Press. Another editor has already commented there about a recent toning down of promotional language and other issues. It's best to ask at the Talk page to have such maintenance templates removed, especially when you have an apparent conflict if interest regarding the subject.

The warning about external links on your own talk page is actually about the many, many citations added across Wikipedia to works published by the University of Utah Press. Although not external links per se, such wide-scale addition is regarded as spamming, and the citations have been reported at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#University_of_Utah_Press. Please follow the blue links on your talk page and the prominent link at the top of this page to "TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo" to understand why this is regarded as spamming. --CliffC (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cliff,

I am new to Wikipedia and am eager to contribute. My apologies if this is not the correct medium for these concerns. If it is not, could you please direct me to the right place to learn/discuss these issues?

It appears that some of my contributions earlier today were reverted because they were flagged as citation spam. I reviewed the WP:REFSPAM page and don't believe my contributions were inline with the 6 guidelines (though I realize these 6 guidelines may not be exhaustive). Responding to them individually: 1) my intentions were to add factual content, not to promote a brand; 2) I contributed factual content in addition to citations for that content, 3) The references I used leads directly to pages where the facts were based, 4)This was not an article for my product or website, 5) I admit that I have not tried to Talk page yet, would that be a better medium for these questions? 6) I do not think I added an external link as my signature, but I am not 100% what my signature is.

Thanks so much for your time. AreteLofoten (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your edits to Medical tourism were reverted because (1) medicaltourismmag.com is a site whose goal is simply to promote the industry, so is not a reliable, neutral source for a citation; and (2) links patientsbeyondborders.com and bajamed.org are commercial sites, also non-reliable sources. When you posted here you may have overlooked the material at the top of the page, especially the link to "TastyPoutine's Spammer Bingo", please take a look at that. I should have put a Welcome template on your talk page when I reverted, your edits, I'll do that now. --CliffC (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback and direction. I am taking the time to look through the resources you sent and will make sure I have a good handle on them before I contribute. Thanks again! AreteLofoten (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read the material you provided and have a few questions concerning the original posts. Please regard this as a genuine inquiry and not a challenge to your reversions. I would like to submit more contributions to this page and want to make sure I have a sound understanding of the citation requirements before doing so.

(1) What is the key difference that separates meidcaltourismmag.com and medicaltourismassociation.com which also appears to be an industry promoting organization and is cited repeatedly in the article?

(2) What is the key difference between bajamed.org and health-tourism.com which is a commercial cite that is also referenced twice in the article?

Thanks again for helping me through this. Best, AreteLofoten (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your question (1), I have not compared the two sites but please keep in mind that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument for inclusion. We are all volunteers here and not every problem will be noticed and addressed. The promotional tone and links in your combined edits is what brought them attention. On question (2), I have cleaned out those two spammy citations and reduced the advertisement-like tone of the surrounding text. If you have a conflict of interest regarding the sites you linked, you probably shouldn't be editing related articles. --CliffC (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations; very helpful. While it's hard for me to see how anything I wrote could be viewed as promotional, I understand the problems with referencing commercial sites. Thanks again, AreteLofoten (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cliffc - As a former member of the board of the MTA, I can tell you that the MTA has no problem with that text being present. In fact, if you ran a whois, you would probably find that text was placed there by people from the MTA. They are merely trying to explain what they do, and they worked hard on their site and used that text to explain their mission as a professional organization. They are a not-for-profit who would have no problem with the text being used. Please restore the text. Thanks. Sposer (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually this happens more often than you might think. I have no doubt that the copyrighted material was placed in Market Technicians Association by someone affiliated with the organization, but Wikipedia is strict about copyrighted material, see WP:COPYVIO. There is advice on correcting the situation under the heading "Can you help resolve this issue?" on the article's copyright notice tag; there is also a link there to Wikipedia:CP#Responding_to_articles_listed_for_copyright_investigation. --CliffC (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did see that, and I've contacted the executive director of the MTA so that he can provide whatever permissions Wikipedia requires. Sposer (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cliff.

I noticed that someone changed the title of a section from "private prisons in other countries," to "private prisons in Israel," or something like that. In fact that was a legitimate change, as no other countries had been mentioned, save for Israel in that section (and the U.K. and the U.S. in the preceding sections).

Then I went to my talk page. You hadn't left anything. Then I went to yours. I went first, at your request to the "tasty bits" or whatever it was, someone else's attempt at cleverness, I assume.

I restored the original title, then added information about for-profit prisons in two other countries, South Africa and Australia. I gave the most convenient cites, from the Private Corrections Institute's "Rap Pages," which provide substantial compendiums of unedited newspaper stories from both countries. I went to each webpage and used the find function to locate a number of words and phrases in the many stories cached there. They included, I believe, "corruption," "riot," "murder," "escape," "understaffing," "negligent deaths," "fines," and others. I verified each separate problem before I inserted them into that short paragraph.

If you do the same, you will quickly find verification of each of these characterizations. (The South African page describes a riot without using that word.)

I might add that the operators and subcontractors in that three-billion-dollar annual revenue industry doesn't much care for that site's content, but they've never, with one exception, contested their veracity. That single exception is a pissant rainmaker, a person who has gone from town to town, selling them prisons and jails as supposed "economic development." Some have been spectacular failures. He has threatened a large number of writers, reporters, editors, publications, bloggers and commentators, sending a wealth of demand letters. All the many recipients of whom I'm aware, to the best of my knowledge, dismissed his baseless complaints, stood by their stories, retained their published material and he took no action against them as no non-frivolous case existed and he would have been liable for costs, and even penalties, in some cases, and he would have been subject to discovery, of course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by activist (talk • contribs)

This discussion belongs at Talk:Private prison. I reverted this edit not because of the Israel/other countries issue but because it is quite obvious that www.privateci.org is not a reliable, neutral, published source per WP:RS. I have reverted the addition again, please discuss at the talk page per WP:BRD --CliffC (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that another editor beat me to the punch reverting by a few seconds, but the talk page remains the place for discussion. --CliffC (talk)

"This user does not give a fuck about vandalism and will respond to sightings with apathy." and yet this user accuses me of vandalism. "This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Balinese (cat), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CliffC (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)" And yet what I did wasn't even vandalism. All I did was remove a reference to a Hollywood movie from an article on CATS. I think that's pretty justifiable.TurtleMelody (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page here. --CliffC (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I added 6-8 previously unpublished addresses of homes that Arnold Rothstein lived at and you remove them? It was the only original piece of information on there -- and it had a legitimate source. Eastvillage

Your recent edits all seem geared to promoting a newly published book, that's called WP:REFSPAM, or sometimes WP:BOOKSPAM. A report has been filed here. --CliffC (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see that there is some check and balance at Wikipedia. Well my external link was not to sell products, services or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. Indeed it was my personnal website with the information of Governor-Generals of East India Company from 1773 to 1858. This link also contained some 20 various coins of East India Company with their specification, giving it a numismatic touch. Haseeb Naz (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2011 (GMT)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website. I have replied on your talk page and also filed a spam report here. --CliffC (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I will refrain this in the future. My website is not a coin sale site.

--Haseeb Naz (talk) 8:23, 8 August 2011 (GMT)

I searched the internet for George Lincoln Rockwell and children. He had seven, according to most sites. Two with his first, five with his second wife. Mr. Daniël 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielAbyss (talk • contribs)

Fine. Assuming you are not blocked first as a sockpuppet, you'll be able to provide a proper citation. --CliffC (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Safe the effort, I am user:Pierlot. And I am done here. Mr. Daniël 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielAbyss (talk • contribs)

Cliff - please read the discussion page of "Beer Sommelier," for my reasoning about adding "The Beer Sommelier" reference. The fact that I added it, should make no difference. I make no reference to either my web site, or remunerations. Additionally, I don't even compare The Beer Sommelier to other companies - simply make a mention, given its historical place in the craft been pantheon and industry. Would it be less "spammy," by your assessment, had someone else placed the reference?

The fact that it's a company is really irrelevant. I've been tapped for expert testimony and resource and featured on/in the TODAY show, Entreprepreneur magazine, the New York Times, Washington Post, TheStreet.com and many other internationally credible media resources (and I have all the interviews, in print and video, to prove it...none of which paid any form of remuneration. I was also used as an official expert witness in a federal, civil court case (testimony now on public record).

So, as I mention in the page's discussion, if there is going to be any Wiki entry referencing term "Beer Sommelier," it's only fair and just to have a presence there by the owner of the term and the one person promoting the craft as no other entity holding said title.

Thank you.

Matttys (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've explained my deletions of promotional material (yours and others) at Talk:Beer sommelier; let's keep the discussion there in public where other interested editors can comment. --CliffC (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Agents Alliance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Agents Alliance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jojalozzo 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I was just reading the Wikipedia article on Seth Swirsky and it reeked of self-promotion. I looked back through the history and the talk page and saw that you had tried to point that out. The person who had done the most work on the article, Jheditorials, posted on the talk page, "Could the editors who tagged this article with the news release and resume tags please come back and provide more details on the sections/areas that they feel are written this way?" A few days later he followed up with "As it has been a week and no one has provided any reasoning for these tags, I am going to remove them. Thank you." I am wondering if you might want to take another look at the article and see what you think of its current version. I don't have an ax to grind here, it just seems rather over-the-top. (I am basically a copyeditor/proofreader and not really schooled enough in Wikipedia content rules to handle something like this myself.) Candy (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay answering your question, I didn't see it until today when I came by to read an article. I don't edit regularly any more, mostly because of disgust with the amount of shameless promotion that has overtaken the project over the last year or so, the Swirsky article is just one example. I've always found good help at WP:EAR, they'll steer you in the right direction. Best, CliffC (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to pursue a similar complaint once--I'm not sure it was at WP:EAR; it's been a couple of years. You may not be surprised to hear this, but I was attacked for having a personal agenda, which wasn't true, and kind of put me off of getting involved. The shameless promotion has been bothering me, too. But I guess I'm not up to all the hassles necessary to fight it. Anyway, thanks for your answer. Candy (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed the deletion of a red link to Gee and haw on the Haw page, and tracked it down to your version User:CliffC/Gee and haw. That material isn't in wiktionary. Was there some argument against adding it there? There are at least two places that it could be linked from in wikipedia, if it were available. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing that. I just now moved Gee and haw back to main article space. As best I recall, I just wasn't in the mood for a wiki-fight when someone demoted it to wiktionary as non-notable a couple of years ago. It's obviously more that a definition. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. There is a new link to it from Gee-haw whammy diddle, definitely needed for educating the world. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Cliff, thanks for setting up the Southwestern Advantage page and redirecting to Southwestern Company - probably best solution given the branding update to our summer sales program. I have two requests that I would like your guidance on 1) The second paragraph directly under the Summer Sales Program header (starts "the president of Southwestern Advantage...") reads like it belongs under the Criticism header - would like your view on moving that section and 2) The Southwestern Advantage sales program has produced a good number of notable Alumni (information that would be relevant to someone researching the program) I see that past entries of Notable Alumni have been removed for lack of citation. If I can provide acceptable 3rd party citation, would that meet requirements for such an entry? Thanks for your attention Tjthomas67 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tjthomas, the first two paragraphs of section 'Summer Sales Program' serve as an overview of the program and introduce and summarize the subsections {'Program operation', 'Endorsements'...) below it, so they belong where they are. I expect a 'Notable alumni' section will be fine with all watchers as long as the notables are blue-linked to their corresponding Wikipedia articles and have 3rd-party citation(s) that they are past student dealers. The long 'History' section bothers me, it probably should be trimmed to 20-25% of its current length, most of this detailed material would be fine in a Corporate History document somewhere at southwestern.com but seems of little interest to the general public, of course ideally the section would still cover the founding, Civil War, Bible sales, the LBO and current management. Best, CliffC (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cliff,

Thank you for your comments in the past on keeping the article I started titled "Franchise Fraud".

I've learned recently of a Wikipedia article that links to Franchise Fraud.

Could you look over the article VetFran. It is currently under discussion for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VetFran

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi 12, I don't have time to ring in on the deletion discussion, but at a glance it looks to me like an ad. --CliffC (talk)

Cliff, have you come to any conclusions about the NY Times and Time Magazine coverage of the George Zimmerman shooting case in Sanford, Florida? 172.129.9.92 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC) BG

Hi,
Maybe you like to know that the discussion in the Technical Analysis Talk Page is currently active.
If you are interested to contribute in the present debate, your help will be appreciated.
177.33.146.101 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've commented over there. --CliffC (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coffee Beanery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise (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) 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the edit history of Tractor beam and saw your recent edit described as "(bold redirect targets)". That puzzled me, because a target is where a redirect or link goes TO, not where it comes FROM. The terms you quite sensibly bolded -- pressor beam and repulsor beam -- are redirect sources, not targets: those pages redirect to Tractor beam, not the other way around.

Regards, Thnidu (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

When a user types "pressor beam" into the search window, or it's wikilinked as pressor beam within an article, control goes from there through a page whose contents are #REDIRECT [[Tractor beam]], thence to the target article. The bolded terms themselves don't redirect or link anywhere. Best, CliffC (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bloomex".

More information Guide for participants ...

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the notice, but the matter was already closed when I got there. The person opening this discussion needs to participate at Talk:Bloomex before escalating to DRN. --CliffC (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC) The period at the end of the poem 'The Red Wheelbarrow' by William Carlos Williams Hi there CliffC, Thanks for your message. The removal of the period at the end of the poem 'The Red Wheelbarrow' by William Carlos Williams was not a test. I edited this because the period is a mistake. The poem does not have any punctuation marks. This is quite important for the poem. I have the original poetry book here, "Spring and All", so I am sure there is no period at the end of the poem. I have again removed the period. I hope you will leave it this way. Thank you! Regards, Kila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilababsie (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, confusing - the online source I got the text from (I don't remember where) a few months ago when I added it back in had the period. I just now checked Amazon for Red Wheelbarrow + author William Carlos Williams and came up with two 'Look Inside'-able books. Oddly, Selected Poems (William Carlos Williams) has a period, The Collected Poems of William Carlos Williams, Vol. 1: 1909-1939 has not. Most descriptions I've seen call the poem "a sentence" but I won't fight to put it back. Thanks for caring about such a seemingly small point, Wikipedia needs more people who do, hope you'll stay around. Best, CliffC (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Kars For Kids If you can pls comment on talk page re Lakewood. Thanks. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Have done so. Kars4Kids is on my watchlist, so no need to post a notice here. Regards, CliffC (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Fred Hilton If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Fred Hilton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.  Tentinator  11:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC) ‎Awards lists in play articles Based on your past editing activity, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre#Award enumeration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Quakers are considered Christians? Quakers and the Salvation Army don't believe in baptism or the Lord's Supper. For Quakers, why do you consider them Christians if they do not believe in baptism or the Lord's Supper? Ashbeckjonathan 20:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC) The Bishop Nomination of The Bishop for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Bishop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hi Cliff, I am nominating this article for deletion because the same information is included in the article entitled "John Tomkins." I think that the John Tomkins article should be kept because that is the perpetrator's actual name. "The Bishop" could mean a lot of things. Hope you're ok with that. MDEVER802 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Spam created by a former employee Hi Cliff. I work for a company that you requested be blacklisted for spam just over 2 years ago. You made the right call (quite obviously if you look at the actions). The spam was created by two former junior employees without the approval or oversight of any manager. The two were sacked for misconduct (related to spamming) about 18 months ago. One of my (rather large) tasks is to find the extent of what these spammers have done and try and repair our company name. The Wikipedia accounts they created are linked to false personas and so should be kept blacklisted, but I wonder whether there is anything I can do to get your support in delisting the company domain names. Whilst we don't want to publish anything or be cited on Wikipedia, I am slightly concerned to be on any blacklist of a such an important web organisation. I don't have a Wikipedia account, but I shall monitor this page for your reply. Many thanks. Thomas. 78.245.224.18 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, any spam blacklist removal request from owners of the site in question will be declined. You could perhaps try to contact Hu12, the person who added your entry to the list. Graham87 14:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Just to let you know You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Floyd Collins (disambiguation) The article Floyd Collins (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:TWODABS While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tavix | Talk  21:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Nomination of Prison consultant for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prison consultant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prison consultant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Special circumstances (criminal law) listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Special circumstances (criminal law). Since you had some involvement with the Special circumstances (criminal law) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC) VFA-143 Edit Question... Hello Cliff, You removed an edit of mine under the article for VFA-143, a naval squadron in Norfolk VA. You then left me a beginners, "slap on the wrist", rather condescending form letter on my talk page. I may not be prolific but I am not new. I have been editing things off and on here for over 12 years. And except for the typical beginner's mistake of trying to get some link love, which I have not done in years, most of my edits I confine to things I know about, and one of those things is Heraldry. I am an acknowledged expert in Heraldry, and military heraldry in particular, I even created the svg used in the article as there was no svg, just a badly artifacted jpg that I replaced a couple of years ago. I really have no problem with my additional information being removed if it was because it strayed a bit of target or it was felt it was too tangential, but I thought it an interesting tidbit about the animal on the squadron insignia as they were already talking about that subject and how the animal was mistakenly identified. At no time did I mention my name or business nor link to my site. So I would genuinely like to understand why changing this "The squadron adopted its current insignia in 1953, a winged black lion (or a mythical Griffin) on a blue shield." to this "The squadron adopted its current insignia in 1953, a winged black lion on a blue shield. Sometimes mistaken for a mythical Griffin, it is actually more accurately a Chimera_(mythology), as the Griffin has the head of an eagle. In heraldic terms, it would be termed a winged lion passant (one paw raised) coward (tail between its legs)." in any way violates any of the pillars or any other wikipedia policy. I look forward to your well thought out and reasoned response. And please no form letter this time. I would appreciate being addressed as a person, not a child who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Regards, Michael Imagecrafting (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Nomination of 1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Close