User talk:CliffC

__NOINDEX__

Good call on reverts
Hi Cliff. Good call on reverting edits like this one to Intravenous immunoglobulin. You'll notice from that diff that both 138.162.8.58 and 138.162.8.57 were involved; they're obviously the same person, as was the consensus from a previous ANI thread. This guy has a 3-year history of vandalism, and his IP addresses are very, very stable. He just came off a 2-week block. I'd say it'd be worth trying to get him blocked again, if you have the energy to do so, just based on his edits to Intravenous immunoglobulin from multiple IPs. Blocked not only for unconstruvtive editing, but also for IP socking, in that he "tag teamed" to try to get the edits to stick, from two different IPs. If you don't choose to try to get him blocked again, then would you please look in on the contributions history for these two IPs every few days if you possibly can, as I'm doing myself? He's just been such an active vandal that he really should be permablocked, but admins here are just so reluctant to do that re an IP, even when there's such strong evidence that it's a static one. ( I doubt the Navy Network has IPs in random rotation, like some civilian ISPs do ... I'd lay money on it, actually. ) Anyway, this guy is a menace, so I'd appreciate it if you'd try to keep "eyes on" too, if you choose not to seek to have him blocked for a longer period at this time. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Once I warn someone I leave him on my watch list, so if he crosses my path again or is warned by someone else I'll report him.  It's weird because some of the edits from that address seem to be good ones, but I'm a believer in shutting the IP down entirely in cases like this.  Oh... just found your archived report at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633 - he's a bad boy indeed.  A two-week block seems very conservative, and, as we see today, ineffective.  I'll check his work once in a while and maybe we can shut him down.
 * Cheers, CliffC (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, CliffC (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, CliffC (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

MGM Edit
Would you PLEASE stop reverting my edits?!?! They are not vandalism! They are truthful facts, and I am sick and tired of reading these stupid fake warnings that are untrue. Speysider (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, I've only reverted your edits once. As a user who has made (as of this morning) only 26 edits but has drawn three separate warnings based on them, maybe it's time for you to take a closer look at your editing practices.  It wouldn't hurt to look at WP:Getting started for some ideas.


 * I don't know why the other editors reverted your edits, I can only explain why I reverted your edits to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, diff here.
 * MGM still exists, so "MGM was an American media company" is incorrect
 * This is an encyclopedia, so casual language like "It no longer exists due to the company going bust during 2010" doesn't work
 * You've placed the above statement where it's cited to a book published in 2005, that is, not cited at all
 * "MGM has already went bankrupt and is a company in name only" is ungrammatical, and you've placed it next to a citation for an article published last month that doesn't support it.
 * None of these are any giant big deal, but they show why you have to edit and cite carefully to get your work to "stick" and not be reverted. Hope this helps.  --CliffC (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and finally, there's nothing in Google News Search saying that the company actually is bankrupt at this point. --CliffC (talk)

southwestern
Hey CliffC I noticed you made some changes on the southwestern website. I assume your objective is to keep the integrity of wikipedia and keep information balanced. I remove a propaganda website of the page which was funded by lawyers (their lobby group) to pass legislation to outlaw the independent contractor status. Trial lawyers benefit tremendously by killing the status by being able to sue every company that uses them. They are trying to discredit Southwestern due to the fact they challenged a law they were supporting in Wisconsin a couple of years ago. I don't feel political propaganda belongs on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefloyd1 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wade, I see you have now deleted the same external link to southwesterncompanytruth.com that was deleted by User:72.48.74.193 and restored by me a few days ago. Thanks for offering an explanation, that link is often removed without an edit summary or other explanation, so the removal tends to look like a run-of-the-mill vandalism and gets reverted.  Just about every company with a Wikipedia page has both pro and con links and the con links are never popular with the subject company.  I don't see that a claim about who's funding them, 'propaganda' or no, would make any difference.  I haven't read everything at the link, but it does seems to pass WP:ELPOV, "...On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views...", since it partly balances Southwestern's own six links in the same section.  I have restored the link.


 * Assuming you are the same Wade Floyd who is a district sales manager at Southwestern, you have a conflict of interest and probably should not be editing the Southwestern article. It's best to make any suggestions for change at the article's talk page so they can be seen and discussed by interested editors.  I'll copy this section over there now.  Any further discussion should take place there.  Thanks, CliffC (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

CliffC, I see that you added the phrase "on commission" to the lead for the Southwestern Company page; this is not accurate. As already stated in the lead; "...purchasing books at wholesale from the company and selling them directly to private families..." is the accurate representation of the relationship between Southwestern Advantage and Dealers. Our dealers do NOT work on commission any more than Walmart, Amazon, Home Depot, or retail small businesses do. Please remove the phrase "on commission". Thanks Tjthomas67 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tjthomas67, I'm copying your request to Talk:Southwestern Company for response over there later today. It seems better to have these discussions out in the open where they're more likely to be seen and commented on by anyone else with an interest in SW. Best, CliffC (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

About Hollow Threat
Don't warn and threaten others when you don't have administrative rights. You username is nowhere in wiki adminsList of Admins. So, you are creating vandalism and threats. Or do you have a separate admin account? That is not allowed here. 115.111.52.227 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't issued you any warnings, so I don't know what your problem is. However, any user, admin or not, can issue warnings for vandalism or other disruptive editing.  Once enough warnings accrue, any user can report the account to the admins at WP:AIV.  It will then be blocked from editing for a few hours/days/weeks/months, depending on its edit history.  Speaking of vandalism, does your boss at Tata realize how many vandalism warnings your account has drawn?  --CliffC (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 115.111.52.227: I am an administrator and I just came across this exchange. I want to reinforce CliffC's comments. Wikipedia, its editors and administrators will take appropriate steps to protect its site from disruption. The Tata IP will be blocked if there is further disruption and I will leave it for folks at Tata to figure out who within their network was abusing their IP; I'm sure they can.


 * CliffC, leave me a note or take the IP to WP:AIV, WP:ANI or WP:3RRN as appropriate if there are further problems. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Thanks for your diligence in protecting our site!

Various Reversions
Hi Cliff, Sorry if I stepped on any toes. I see the reversions you've made to my posts, and I'll study the policies more closely to avoid in the future. I was generally convinced that I was directing users to a better patent display page for those patents, but in the future I'll respect the link provided in citations and I'll avoid adding external links and use text citations instead, and only where appropriate. Thanks for the time you put into this. Snarkosis (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you too. Regards, CliffC (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

the same picture south with north,east and west
picture must same with  but different directions. Akuindo (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Akuindo - if you are suggesting that the same basic compass image should be used to illustrate South as for North, East and West, it does seem a bit odd for South to be different. At the South image it says "File:Compass Rose English East.svg is a vector version of this file.  It should be used in place of this raster image when superior" so it seems to make sense if you want to edit South to use the other version.  Please bring up any other concerns at the South talk page.  Regards, CliffC (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision of Tijuana Bible link

 * 1) 6 on your TastyPoutine. The article is original material and in my view informative of what a tijuana bible is. I have graphics showing different styles over the different time periods. I have links to graphics exemplifying points I am making in my article. I have examples of original advertisements for the product. I think it has worth as an article. What more are you looking for? (I have been told I come across in print as being sarcastic, please do not take anything here as such. I am sincerely wanting to know what I need to do.) Xavier sword of humakt (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The site for the first link you added, http://www.tijuana-bibles.com/, did not exist, so assuming a typo, I tried dropping the S from 'bibles' and that took me to a sales site that would never pass WP:EL.  Your second try, http://www.antiqueweird.com/article/article.htm , seems less salesy but ends up linking to the first site.  I suggest you post a request to add a link at Talk:Tijuana bible and see if other editors think the link is appropriate.  Editors are encouraged to improve Wikipedia by adding cited text, not links.  --CliffC (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Mia culpa on the typo! I often put extra e's and s's in my typing for some reason. I'll try and reformat the article to remove the link to the sales site that appears at the bottom and only leave the sales banner at the top to make it as minimally "salesy" as possible. I'm surprised that if http://www.tijuana-bible.com does not meet the standard, that http://www.tijuanabible.org does. 67.170.183.78 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

About Qalandars
CliffC, are you an administrator>? I don't think so! Anyways the edits were quite justified and I dont understand why you reverted them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.52.227 (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a welcome template to your talk page explaining why your change to Qalandar was reverted:
 * ...nomads who generally practice mysticism and magic and associate their names with Sufis to earn money. Many cases of fraud and sexual harassment have been filed against them in South Asia.
 * does not reflect a neutral point of view. The other edit I reverted lacked an explanatory edit summary and looked like the sort of garden-variety vandalism we get here all day long. As to whether I am an administrator, see my response to a similar question from another anonymous Tata employee (or perhaps you), four sections above at About Hollow  Threat.  Please review the blue links in that welcome template to avoid being blocked.  --CliffC (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comma usage
If you use a comma between a name and the Jr./Sr., then there must follow a final comma (because the first comma functions to introduce a parenthetical phrase). Otherwise, all commas between the name and the Jr./Sr. may be omitted. These are two different styles, and cannot be combined. Examples:

Yes: Desi Arnaz, Jr., ate a hamburger. Desi Arnaz Jr. ate a hamburger.

No: Desi Arnaz, Jr. ate a hamburger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.43.187 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

IVC
Given your revert, you seem to be the person to ask for what to do next. I didn't know what IVC stands for and had to research until it became clear to me it meant the vale tudo championships, so I added that. Is there no way we can help the readers?Razionale (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, there is a policy for disambiguation pages (at WP:DAB} that discourages red links (links to nonexistent articles). Since there is no Wikipedia International Vale Tudo Championships article here yet, until one is written there is no way to disambiguate IVC to it.  If you click on that redlink you'll get to a page that shows that an article by that name existed here briefly in June of 2010 but was deleted because "article does not say why its subject is notable".  You might ask User:Fastily to put a copy of the deleted article in your user space to work on. I see that Google has about 43,000 hits for

"International Vale Tudo Championships" & "IVC"
 * so there should be plenty of sources to show it's notable. Also, there is an article World Vale Tudo Championship.  I haven't looked at it but maybe it might be useful as a model?  The "how to create your first article" link on your talk page should be helpful if you want to give it a shot.  Happy editing, CliffC (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the page was previously created. When I have more time to spare, I'll come back to this proposal. So far I have problems with finding clearly reliable sources even for Hélio Gracie. Most is written by fans and clubs.Razionale (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually got around to writing this article.--Razionale (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I added a break after the table to avoid the runover, if that doesn't work for you, just revert me. Best, CliffC (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It works fine for me. Thank you.--Razionale (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Franchise fraud California
Thank you for looking at the article Franchise Fraud. Is sourced to a government website, the state of California. I understand that US Government in not copyright, unless stated. Is this not the same for the California state?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think the individual states' works are free of copyright, that's why I reverted the addition of material direct from the California legal codes. But I'm going to retitle your question and move it and this reply to Talk:Franchise fraud where they can be seen by a broader audience that's hopefully more expert in copyright matters.  I think the bigger issue here is the need to get such descriptions from a reliable source.  Anything taken direct from legal codes should be rewritten/paraphrased to simplify it and remove the legalese so it can be understandable by everyone.  --CliffC (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Patrick Kennedy II
Oh well. :( But you've taught me about the DOBs policy. &lt;( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )&gt; 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No biggie, just one more obscure but basically sensible policy. I've stumbled over a few myself.  Best, CliffC (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Medical tourism page ...
Hi Cliff. I noticed that you've at least had a look-see at the "medical tourism" article in the past. I originally signed up for a Wikipedia account in 2006 thinking to help with that article; my book on the subject had just been published. I took a look at the process and infighting over the entry and RAN the other direction. The article was a mess, then. It seems to me now that, though there are many interesting links and sources, the article is not actually better and it may be worse. Much of what is in it has been contributed by companies or organizations with financial interests in the so-called industry. Quite a bit of what is included is that which is most speculative in the existing journalism or literature.

I'm not writing to you to ask how I go about rewriting the article to my own satisfaction. I am sure any such attempt would simply reboot the arguments. (My book, though still available, has gone out of print and I have no current financial interest in medical tourism, by the way; I'm working on entirely unrelated projects, and it's those that brought me back to Wikipedia.) My question to you is: Is there someone whom I could talk to about what the entry really ought to be, so that maybe we could find a path forward to something that would be of much more benefit to readers than what is there now? Frankly, my best suggestion is that the article be started over again, and monitored.

This is the first thing I've ever had to say on Wikipedia and I hope I've done it right. Thanks for your forbearance and for listening, and happy holidays to you.AuthJeff (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff, welcome back. I put a template on your talk page to help you get reacquainted with the project.  I suggest you post the above or something similar at Talk:Medical tourism to get comments and suggestions from a broader audience.  The article has several regulars, and is on 81 watchlists, not to say that all 81 editors care enough to contribute, or even visit regularly.  It would be helpful to outline what you have in mind as far as improvements, or as additional reliable sources, not that easily found for this subject.


 * I personally don't think the article is in poor enough shape to need a full rewrite, but certainly the structure is somewhat messy, with plentiful statements lacking cites or poorly cited, where sourcing should be improved or the statement removed. The spammers and we-are-the-greatest-hospital promoters have been kept down for the most part, but it's an ongoing battle.  Regards and happy holidays.  --CliffC (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, help and advice, Cliff. It's nice to be welcomed. I probably know, or know of, a lot of the editors/contributors for the medical tourism article ... we'll see how welcome I am there. ;) I do have another primary interest in being on wikipedia. Among my newer hats is as senior/contributing editor of SexIs magazine, which has a page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SexIs_%28magazine%29 ... the page is currently listed as an orphan. I have the information to update it so that it won't be an orphan -- links, sources, etc. -- but is it OK for me to be the one to make these factual edits? I assume that if I was trying to make it into a marketing vehicle, I'd be (rightly) castigated. But is it OK for me to work on the page to make it better? Thanks again. AuthJeff (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being upfront about your relationship to SexIs. The best thing to do is to state that relationship, just as you have above, on the article's talk page.  You have a possible conflict of interest in editing the article - that's not a bad thing, just a reality.  As I interpret the material at that link (and I am not an administrator, so not an expert), it might be okay to make neutral edits directly, but for anything else, you should propose the change on the talk page and let someone else make it, assuming no disagreement.  In its current state it seems unlikely to survive a deletion debate (AFD) were one started.  I added an advert tag, mostly because the sections 'Mission statement' and 'Coverage' seem overly promotional.  I'm not sure it would survive an AFD that challenged the magazine's notability, so that's something for you to work on.  As to the Orphan tag, that is based on a dearth of incoming links from other Wikipedia articles, but I'd suggest not calling broader attention to the article by adding links to it until it's in better shape.  I don't want to get involved in improving the article myself, but I'll also suggest getting rid of the 'Bloggess Controversy' section, IMO it's just a bunch of namedropping/promotion that seems only remotely related to the article's subject.  Hope this all helps.  Best, CliffC (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Goetz edit
Wanted to ask you to clarify your revert of my edit to the Goetz page of Dec. 28. You reverted on grounds of trivia/advert and referred to WP:PROMOTION, but I was hoping you could be more specific. The edit was properly cited and seems to be no more promotional than any of the existing entries in the Cultural References section. I have no financial interest in any person or group mentioned in the edit.Alexiskai (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, that's a fair question. I reverted your edit here because when someone makes an unsupported claim at a story-telling session it's not encyclopedic.  Even if there were some reliable source somewhere confirming that Grant decided not to go breaking into coin boxes that day, IMO it would still be trivia because it's information that is not important – it didn't change anything that day, except for him.  I saw the iTunes link and assumed it was a paid download, that was incorrect, and the mention of The Moth did seem to be promoting the site, sorry if I misread it, there is a lot of site promotion in Wikipedia and I am probably oversensitive.  As to the other stuff in the trivia section, I haven't looked at it, but see other stuff exists.  It might not belong there either.  Regards, CliffC (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My reasoning for including the information was two-fold. First, insofar as the page authors think it appropriate to include a section listing cultural references to the Goetz case, the instance at the Moth does appear to be a reference occurring in popular culture. The truth or falsity of the claim isn't really at issue, only that Grant did verifiably refer to the case in a spoken-word performance that was released by a reputable non-profit media company. Second, according to the reliable source guidelines, unreliable sources may be acceptable when talking about themselves. Alternately, if Grant is a primary source and his account of some of the events leading up to the group's encounter with Goetz might shed light on the characters of the four boys, that might qualify it for inclusion in the article. (In that case, it probably should go somewhere other than the cultural references section, but I didn't want to step on that land mine right away.)


 * I appreciate your desire to maintain the integrity of the article, but I would argue that the edit does meet the notability criteria of the section in which it was placed. If you disapprove of the cultural references section altogether, you can make that case on the talk page, but I don't think you should unilaterally lock the section down. The trivia guidelines discourage trivia sections, but they don't actually forbid them. Alexiskai (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to re-add it, I won't object, as long as it stays in the trivia section and the recently added external link to the podcast is repurposed as a reference. I think it's unfortunate that any nonentity can make an unsubstantiated claim and have it memorialized in Wikipedia as long as he makes it in a venue that's notable enough to have its own article.  That's my feeling on trivia items in general, not just about Grant, and I can't muster the  energy to fight them all as long as they stay localized.  I'll take a look at that section now to weed out any items lacking blue links.  Best for the new year, CliffC (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Business Insider removal
Hello CliffC

I saw that you removed "business insider" from some of my edits because it really was not relevant and looked like spam or promotion. Thank you. I had not thought of it in that manner and I see your point. Good suggestion and will keep this in mind for the future. Goalloverhere (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC) ps - I enjoyed your Spammer Bingo page. ; ) Goalloverhere (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year and thank you
Thank you for your good work on stopping the ad-text. Happy new year! Nahome (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Kaplan


I see that Debbiele03 has again removed the maintenance tags about BLP and primary sources that were originally placed there. You had previously restored the tags. If you think that the tags still belong on that article, you might consider opening a discussion on the talk page. I still have the article on my watch list due to a previous complaint at WP:COIN. It is frustrating that Debbiele03 will not communicate. If there is no other way to get this editor's attention, either a block or an AfD might be considered. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, I restored the tags just on general principles when they were were again removed without explanation. I also came to the article from WP:COIN; I have no specific interest in the subject matter.  After looking at the improved state of the article, I'm okay with the tags off.  Editor Debbiele03 may need a short block to get her attention.  Best, CliffC (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And she continues to add copyrighted material, without any need, to the articles. There's no reason not to have at least the main article on wikipedia, except that editor Debbiele03, who appears to be an intern at the magazine, copies from the web, and pastes it into wikipedia, and is beginning to prove a reason not to have the articles on wikipedia. It's hard to believe that these college students and graduates don't know a thing about plagiarism. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe she got her start in the interning racket at Cook's Source? --CliffC (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of OPSWAT market share information on Panda page
I'd like to discuss your removal of the OPSWAT market share report data placed on the Panda Security page. This data is relevant for the vendor and visitors to the page, and isn't a plea for inbound links to the market share report .pdf as noted. We are well aware that there is no SEO value in having links on Wikipedia as they are tagged as, and this is done as an FYI for those reading. The data is based on legitimate information, and should therefore be allowed to remain on the page. 98.234.150.172 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Diff of what was removed from Panda here. A spam report was filed on these and similar spammed links, not just the ones in Panda Security, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam.  I cleaned them out of about 20 articles and also warned User:209.220.223.2 about posting WP:REFSPAM, a growing problem here.  I suggest you open any discussion at the Wikiproject Spam report linked above.  --CliffC (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick explanation
Thanks for your comments at the WQA report regarding myself (archived here). In case you are concerned about the back-and-forth still proceeding at my talk, I just wanted to explain that it's not taking much time, and it is possibly less time than would be required if their energies were focused elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to tell you, when I saw his latest edit I was very tempted to just revert it, the same as I would any vandalism, but I couldn't think of an appropriate edit summary. I know as a third-party observer I shouldn't get irked, but I find him exasperating.  But I'll just watch quietly and hope he'll get bored, or be blocked for disruption.  I still think it's best not to feed him, though.  Best & happy new year, CliffC (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's Talk, I want to know more
Hi Cliff and thank you for editing Bambu rolling papers. I wasn't sure if that court finding I put up was worth posting. It seemed pretty signifcant to me as it would be a very significant event in a brand's history to be sued into bankruptcy. It also finally explained why the brand was sold to a new owner and moved to a new factory for outsource production. I completely respect your opinion but wanted to know why you beleive it's not significant enough to be included in that article. I am a regular contributor and need to learn more about Wiki before I make that same mistake again on another article later. Thanks and happy Wiki'ing!  Nahome  04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, if you'll post at Talk:Bambu rolling papers I'll respond over there. Best to keep the discussions in one spot.  --CliffC (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox McDonald's
Hey, the changes I made work. The image in infobox on the McDonald's page just hadn't been update yet (I was called away from the computer and wasn't able to finish). The alt text was the result of a copy and paste from the similar Infobox Burger King template where I developed the new fields, I just missed that change. After I got it working, I copied the changes to the McDonald's template page and added the documentation. Next time don't delete the changes, fix the errors. The alt text was an easy fix as was updating the formatting on the McDonald's page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You made changes to the Infobox McDonald's template just after 2:00 a.m. (my time) last night that caused a problem in the McDonald's article to be reported by a passerby about an hour later, here. The problem was not only the wrong alt text you mention; visible in the infobox and wrapped around the double arches was the entire artifact  [[file: |200px|alt=Burger King Whopper combo]] .  I've always believed that the first thing to do with a bad change (especially one visible to the public) is to back it off.  That I did, reverting the template changes, which caused the artifact to disappear.  You say "Next time don't delete the changes, fix the errors." I did take a look at your changes with a view to fixing them, but the error was not obvious.  There was no immediate need for action once the artifact was cleared up, and who better to fix a bad fix than its creator, who knows what it was intended to accomplish?


 * You say "the changes I made work", but the changes you made did not "work", in the sense of producing a clean infobox, until you changed the McDonald's article itself to conform to the revised template, in this edit made about ten hours later. You have a nice collection of compliments on your talk page about doing a nice job with these templates, keep it up and try not to let one small error spoil your day.  --CliffC (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

D'Jais
Can you revisit ? Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. --CliffC (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ecig
Why is it that you delete my citation - yet keep word for word the content that comes direct from my site (http://smokeelectroniccigarettes.org/?p=12)? That proves that you think the content deserves to be there, and if so the citation should be there. If not, then you should be removing the content that comes word for word from my site as well.

"Examples of popular flavors are plain tobacco, blueberry, strawberry, cola, menthol, coffee, fruits, chocolate and vanilla." "A full electronic cigarette cartridge generally lasts for about 250 puffs"

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footsoreaxe (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That citation is a classic example of what we call reference spam. Not every statement in Wikipedia requires a citation.  A list of flavors, and the number of puffs in an electronic cigarette, are not likely to be challenged.  If either statement ever was challenged, the article is now on my watchlist and I would look for a reliable source, probably some official government document, to back it up.  This reply is for User:Bobbythebuilder1 also - if you are using multiple accounts you may be blocked from editing.  --CliffC (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footsoreaxe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

bullshit
"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Talk:1-800-Flowers. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. CliffC (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)"
 * Please refrain from misstating my actions. I posted the info on the discuss page. It's a major human rights group commenting on the worlds largest retailer of flowers. It's relevant on the talk page as it adds info about a major controversy involving the subject of the article. any more comments like you posted on my talk page -- anon or not -- and I will no longer assume good faith on your behalf. In fact, please don't contact me again. 24.24.151.13 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:TALK to learn what Wikipedia talk pages are for (hint: not for "spreading the news" about the article's subject or encouraging readers to sign a petition, as you did here). --CliffC (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What was a reason to remove an important fact about HP history?
On September 7, 2010 H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO Mark Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board.. Three business days after filing suit in a court HP reached a settlement with Mr. Hurd. After all the “Hurd Saga" was another convincing illustration that it is almost impossible in California to legally prevent the transition of an employee to any lawful job, including even a job for a direct competitor of his former employer. Any your clarifications will be greatly appreciated, Thanks --Knff (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean that you removed - from the article about HP - the following paragraph:


 * Hi, it was removed because the language "After all the “Hurd Saga" was another convincing illustration that it is almost impossible in California to legally prevent the transition of an employee to any lawful job, including even a job for a direct competitor of his former employer" is editorializing, and does not reflect Wikipedia's required neutral point of view. Even if that were exactly what netvalley.com said - and I don't see that in the linked citation - it would likely be immaterial, as netvalley.com does not appear to be a reliable source. If the original author had stopped right after "Three business days after filing suit in a court HP reached a settlement with Mr. Hurd", and cited that statement to a reliable source such as the NY Times article here, that would have been fine.  It might be worthwhile to copy your question and my response to Talk:Hewlett-Packard so that the original author User:Brigclark can see them, what do you think?  --CliffC (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I cant't buy these your clarifications. The paragraph that we are talking about is a direct quotation from NY Times.  The  source of the last phrase  is one of the most reputable  Web site in regards to IT history (Silicon Valley History, Top 100 Computer Companies, ... well known since 1995). Why did you decide  to remove the paragraph that contain an important fact of the HP recent  history?


 * This looks like a classical attempt to censorship the Web.  I still suggest that the paragraph we are talking about should be restored first and then we can talk about it in any forum  that you prefer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knff (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I've read the last phrase -- that you are doubt about -- again and finally agree that language can be changed to more neutral.  Why not restore the paragraph first and then address to  Brigclark this our concern? We can keep an option to remove the last phrase of this paragraph later as our last resort ... --Knff (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the entire paragraph for the reasons stated above; I chose not to pick through it to keep what was salvageable. I see now that this is a bigger problem than violation of neutral point of view and lack of a reliables source.  As you say, "The paragraph that we are talking about is  a direct quotation from NY Times", something I did not realize when I read the material cited to it.  The entire string "...H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO [Mark] Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board" is indeed a direct quotation from the Times, a copyright violation that Wikipedia does not permit.  If you or User:Brigclark want to rewrite that material in your own words and restore it, please do so.  The material cited to netvalley.com should not be re-added for the reasons noted above.  I'm not attempting to "censor the web", I'm explaining why your edit was deleted and encouraging you to re-add it, written in your own words and properly cited. Any further discussion should take place at Talk:Hewlett-Packard.  --CliffC (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Got your point. If I understood you correctly, now you suppose that quotation with direct link to source is an act of  "copyright violation". Do I need to provide you with long series of examples of quotation, that you can find in almost any of wiki-articles? --Knff (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't be necessary, I have no doubt that other undiscovered copyright violations exist, but we're talking about this one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument.  Why not just fix it?  --CliffC (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean that even wiki-special format presentation was designed for this kind of "undiscovered copyright violations": Thank you for your time and have a great week, Knff (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * References for above discussion of HP:


 * I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Hewlett-Packard, where it is more likely to be seen by other interested parties. I will respond to your copyright question over there.  --CliffC (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just want to let you know that I responded to one of your suggestions at the Talk:Hewlett-Packard ---Knff (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi CliffC, i am still waiting your reply at the HP page. Any suggestions? --Knff (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. --CliffC (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion continued at Talk:Hewlett-Packard, then moved to the above-mentioned spam report archived here. On the subject of copyright violations and what is allowable, unfortunately I never simply quoted from uw-copyright:
 * "...For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images."

--CliffC (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Till
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for your effort to raise the quality of the Emmett Till article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor
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. Slight Smile  14:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Grandma_Prisbrey's_Bottle_Village
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.  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)

Extreme Blue
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)

Dynamic (record label)
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.  Best, CliffC (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Doufeu
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. Ged UK  21:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Harry Clarke
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 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)

Spam or not spam
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)

Wedding photo.
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, '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 ( Greek Wedding Photography Money Dance.jpg) 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)

Advertising
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))

Romina Power Objective pros
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))

Southwestern
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)

Spammy Links
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)

Western Union
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)

McKenzie Method
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)

UK punctuation
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)

Dog Training Tool Removal
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)

E-Meter
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. Pac if ic Bo y  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)

CAN-SPAM and unsubscribe
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 &#124; u &#124; 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 &#124; u &#124; 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)

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

Nice pruning on Bell!
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)

Jane Russell
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

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


 * 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,

Get some assistance on Mystery (pickup artist) pic edit?
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)

Gout
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)

Reverting our newspaper page
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)

DYK for Giggle incontinence
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Clinic
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)

Medical Tourism
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)

Question about Functional Medicine page
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)

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

Question about advert tag
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.  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)

Citation Spam
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)

Market Technicians Association Copyright
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 CP.  --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)

Private Prisons
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)

Vandalism?
"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)

Why in the world?
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)

/* External links */
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)

George Lincoln Rockwell
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)

Effort
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)

The Beer Sommelier Inquiry
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)

Nomination of National Agents Alliance for deletion
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 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. Joja lozzo  16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Seth Swirsky
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)

Gee and haw
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)

Southwestern Advantage
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)

Please look over an article
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)

Reliable sources
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

Technical Analysis
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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
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)

target vs. source
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)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at 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". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to 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


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.--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)

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 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. Graham 87 14:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at 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&#32; 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 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 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!
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 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)