User talk:DutchB1

SPARQ Training
Hey Dutch! I see that we have both been editing the SPARQ Training article (see link above), and it seems to be slowly progressing in quality thanks to our contributions to it. However, it lately seems that you have been reverting most of my edits without giving much more reasoning than what you put in your edit summaries, even calling recent ones commercial spam. Obviously, spamming is not allowed on Wikipedia (see the policy on it at WP:SPAM). First of all, I would suggest notifying the person on their talk page, (even giving them a warning if blatant spammer) if you accuse someone of doing this, so that they can find out what is going on. Second, before warning or accusing someone, you must look closely into their edits to make sure that they weren't good-faithed edits and also to make sure that they actually do comply with the spamming policy. Looking back on this, I do realize that this is actually technically an advertisement and that it is not a third-party source. It was a good-faithed edit, because it was an accident, and if you look at my contributions, you notice that I do not normally place links like this into articles and that I have recieved no warnings, therefore it would suggest it was unintentional. Sorry for the long reply, one more thing... You also did redirect the talk page, but not the main page of SPARQ Training to SPARQ. I just wanted to clarify that I moved it back for two reasons. 1. An article should never have a different titled talk page than itself and 2. The disambiguation page of Sparq suggests that there are many other notable things that could be titled SPARQ in the future, so therefore we probably need to keep it at SPARQ Training for now. I believe our conflicts are due to miscommunication and that if you use both my talk page and the SPARQ Training talk page more often, conflicts lkie this can be avoided in the future. Sorry once more for the long reply. I just want to make my points clear. You can reply to me at my talk. Thanks for reading!  Meis funny  Gab 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT
Regards weighted clothing, the information you replaced on the page was unsourced. Per WP:PROVEIT, after being challenged and removed by another editor, it is your responsibility to find the required citations to verify the information rather than merely replacing it. A manufacturer's website is not sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop adding unsourced information to weighted clothing. If you have sources to address and verify your point, include them.  Otherwise, the claims made should not be replaced.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize that you've had your content deleted, I don't agree with how WLU has simply deleted it. Information should be sourced, but editors should assume good faith and give a chance to edit it. I am restoring what I have seen of yours deleted (feel free to supplement this if I miss any) and adding a fact-tag to it to fulfill WLU's request that it be sourced. I hope when you're on that you might stop by and aid in sourcing it. DB (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)