User talk:Davidwiz

External Links to Blogs
Please go to WP:EL and take a look at the opening paragraph. It reads: Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: In Steve Gillard's case, the three links I reverted all fall into this category. They are links to pages which are both the subject of the article -- that is they are about the subject of the article, indeed, by the subject of the article, and they are also an official page of the article subject, coming from his official blog. Thus they fall into the Except category.

Furthermore, Gilliard was considered a recognized authority in his field, which is reason #11 below, with The News Blog being ranked in the top 20 progressive blogs in the United States and no less than The New York Times and the Daily Kos, along with HillaryClinton.com and every major blog in the country writing obits for Gilly. Theses specific posts are widely considered to be iconic writings.

In any event, as I point out, they are covered under WP:EL. When Gilliard died, someone tried to list his bio for speedy deletion, which made all of us look bad. Let's not try and delete the links to his most iconic writings as well. *smiles*

Thanks much, --Bzengo 07:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Memory Groove Grip Safety.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Memory Groove Grip Safety.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions
I edited the AHSA article to clean it up a bit. A couple suggestions for the future:

John Broughton |  Talk 19:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:CITE on how to create footnotes/references (putting ref tags around them really isn't enough, and if you don't add a notes section with a special tag, the text in your footnotes/refererences isn't even visible)
 * If you would add edit summaries, per Help:Edit summary, to your edits of articls, other editors would better understand what you're doing, and you often can the extra work of posting to a talk page to explain your edit (which isn't considered good form).
 * It's unusual to force extra blank lines into a list, as you did; it wasn't clear why, so I removed them.

Citation problem
I reverted this edit of yours: the URL given as a citation appears not even to mention Chuck Stein. It is possible that the URL was changed since you added this, but per WP:BLP we can't have this sort of statement without a verifiable citation. I suggest that, assuming you can find something, you put more of a citation than just a URL. Especially if this can be found in an article that was a reprint of a print publication, giving the full information about original publication means that even if the link goes dead there is still a citation.

On the whole, that particular article his hideously poorly cited, which I will try to work on, but see the E.J. Dionne citation there for an example of doing this well. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

October 2007
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. • Lawrence Cohen  21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater USA subsidiaries
If you have a problem with the wording, then please change the wording, but don't remove an entire sourced paragraph. Corvus cornix 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dillon Aero
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are clueless. I didn't "cut and paste", I redirected the Dillon Areo, Inc. page to Dillon Areo.--Davidwiz (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mary Beth Maxwell
I noticed from the history and talk page of this article that you edited this and had concerns about notability. It is quite clear, from sources on "both sides of the aisle", that the subject is notable. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A blogger on Daily Kos and The Atlantic are hardly what is considered "both sides of the aisle". Not to mention the blatant cheerleading in the Maxwell article. If every two-bit politician and "activist" were listed on Wikipedia, the whole purpose of Wikipeidia would cease.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted you once again at this article. While blogs are not normally considered good sources, each balances the other, and both are well-known and respected blogs. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also clean up the cheerleading as you call it. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jan H. Donatelli
Hi there. On the talk page of this article, you wrote, 'This page seems nothing more than a campaign page. How is this person notable?'. I agree with you: she isn't. I have proposed the page for deletion. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

nominated an article you've worked on for deletion
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie Theserialcomma (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of LegalZoom


The article LegalZoom has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't meet notability requirements.

While all 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. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 03:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Webloyalty
Would greatly appreciate it if you could explain in more detail the reason for your edit. As a new Wikipedia member, I'm still learning all the guidelines and am trying to follow them appropriately. My understanding was that a company can edit a page about their company. I did so on April 25, 2010 to give readers more balanced information about Webloyalty such as it's history, the services it offers and the actual steps in the enrollment process. My intention was in good faith and it was not intended as marketing verbiage. It would be helpful if you could clarify exactly which parts were considered marketing verbiage, fill me in on what you consider "unsourced statements" and provide me with any other input I can use to edit the page so that it includes more balanced factual information about Webloyalty while complying with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks. Mary,Webloyalty (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've openly represented myself as affiliated with Webloyalty in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. As explained before, my objective is simply to add some background information and some updated information so that the article is more neutral and factual which is the objective of Wikipedia. At the very least, a few more facts should be cited about Webloyalty so that readers can recognize the Webloyalty programs when they come across them online (see "Bloomberg Business Week", DMNews.com June 10, 2008 and DMNews.com July 30, 2008) and updated information should be added with Webloyalty's response to the Senate Commerce Committee report that was cited seven months ago in the "Criticism" section (see CBS8.com). I hope we can collaborate and reach an agreement on the addition of more facts so that the article is more neutral and more updated. Mary,Webloyalty (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Mary,Webloyalty

Nomination of LegalMatch for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article LegalMatch, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/LegalMatch (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)