User talk:AdamC90

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Robert lorsch has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. IHG (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Flowerdress.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Flowerdress.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Kirareedemmys2011 .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kirareedemmys2011 .jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Kirareedemmys2011 .jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Kirareedemmys2011 .jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Information regarding conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) creating or editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. OccamzRazor (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Lorsch
Hello, AdamC90. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Robert Lorsch, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Robert Lorsch to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Zujua (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Lorsch for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Lorsch 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 Articles for deletion/Robert Lorsch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. damiens.rf 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
Although this editor has been editing since August 2008, they have only ever edited the two articles Kira Reed and Robert Lorsch (who are a married couple). This is clearly a single-purpose account. Please read the Wikipedia policy, Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you are, or know, either Kira Reed or Robert Lorsch then you should not be editing these articles. HairyWombat 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Your recent edits to Kira Reed violate policy. All of the material you reverted is sourced, to books produced in academia. They're hardly libelous, as you state in your edit summary. Please knock it off. You risk being blocked from editing. David in DC (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Caltas. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Kira Reed with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Caltas (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please join this discussion on the Kira Reed talk page. You've been removing material that's backed by references to reliable sources, calling them libel or slander. That's really not the best tack.  If you join the conversation on the talk page, you may be able to muster a consensus that at least some of this notable material ought to be excised, per WP:UNDUE. I'm certainly persuadable on that point. But blanket deletion with claims of slander or libel are not terribly convincing, and may fall within the prohibition here. David in DC (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You might also want to check out WP:NOTCENSORED, per diffs such as this and, which were also marked as "minor" edits, another NO NO.  He  iro 03:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I can help us come to a easonable solution more easily if you participate in a discussion on the Talk: Kira Reed page. I think we're hoing in on a versio that meets both your WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns without violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOT etc.  But you would help with bolstering the basic assumption of good faith if you tried to reach consensus on the talk page, rather than editing and then having me clean up.  That approach seems to be working, but clunkily.  It's not the ideal way to collaborate.  Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned you in a discussion on ANI about Kira Reed
Please see this discussion. You may wish to comment there. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Lorsch for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Lorsch 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 Articles for deletion/Robert Lorsch& 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)