User talk:FAShelfer

Welcome.
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions or ask your question and then place after the question on your talk page. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-16t20:03z
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of style

Your name change request
You listed your name change on the usurp page. This is only if you want to use an already created account. The account you want hasn't been created yet, so please to here. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Michael Shelfer and WP:COI
I will tell you straight up as another user: edits by family to an article no matter how well intended do not sit well with the Wikipedian community. Please follow the link in WP:COI above to see what it says. In addition, I will draw your attention to Autobiography. Please read because I too now feel a Conflict of Interest exists. I would advise not to perform any more edits to this article.

After I post here, I will revert to the last page posted by the user referenced on my user talkpage. Ronbo76 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

dammed if I do, dammed if I don't!
I would like to clarify a few things about the subject article Michael Shelfer and the reason why it was submitted.

(Fashelfer 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I've received so much flack after posting the article referring to Michael Shelfer that I'm really considering never signing into Wikipedia again. Some members seem to think that the article is a conflict of interests (COI), un-noteworthy, or poorly sourced.  I'm a new user of Wikipedia and I'm not here to make enemies or to offend anyone.  I also admit that I don't have a handle on all the rules yet.  I'm also Michael Shelfer's father and, with out question, very proud to be so.  However, I've attempted to edit, reword or remove anything that could legitimately be considered of questionable content, or of ulterior or promotional motive.  Michael Shelfer, the American manga artist, is already listed in the content of previously existing Wikipedia articles which no one seems to have had issue with.  The information currently contained in the article Michael Shelfer is intended to be entirely consistent with and supplemental to information contained in the referenced and sourced Wikipedia articles.  I understand that Wikipedia isn't an ad page.  That was never the objective of the article on Michael Shelfer in the first place.  The article was purely intended to inform and educate the public about a notable individual who already has a respectable audience or, as the industry calls it, "fan base".  One of the best ways to achieve that seemed to be in posting his biography, information regarding his artistic career to date and some applicable reference and source links on Wikipedia.  In reading the posted article on Michael Shelfer, his notability should be evident.  In questioning Michael’s notability, the user, RHaworth, further asserts COI because I happen to be his father.  As long as the article isn’t biased in a promotional way and doesn’t contain information which can’t be referenced to publicly available, professional sources, why should the fact that I’m his father be and issue?  I'm a retired geologist with many, many hobbies and much better things to do than defend ridiculous assertions of COI made by individuals who haven't a clue about what motives I do or do not have.  As a retired professional, academic and author of many professional scientific papers, I’ve never attempted to use my association with another to promote ideas or information or to otherwise operate in any manor which could be considered a conflict of interest.  My personal and professional ethics would never allow me to be engaged in such activities.  The information regarding Michael Shelfer which I placed on Wikipedia can be confirmed by any one who has an interest in doing so.  The article can be edited by anyone having the desire and initiative to edit it.  Instead of attempting to discredit the article, why not allow Wikipedia contributors the opportunity to edit the information as necessary and make it available for all interested parties to have access to.  After all, isn't that the reason and premise for Wikipedia's existence?  Instead of the negative responses that the article's received thus far, aren't there any Wikipedia contributors who could offer some constructive criticism in helping to edit the article’s information making it more and more suitably informative and available for the general public's use?  The reason that I blanked the page (and was admonished for doing so by Bsroiaadn) was partially because of one individual's constant negative attacks on the merit, content and appropriateness of the article; but primarily because of the lack of constructive input by most of those who made comments or changes.  In blanking the article, my intention was to terminate the article and resolve the issues that have been voiced thus far, once and for all.  I don't need this and I'm quiet sure that Michael Shelfer doesn’t either; he's currently as busy as he can be at work on "Dead Already" Volume 2 plus a brand new graphic novel series for TOKYOPOP.  If this is how Wikipedia members welcome new contributors, then I don't believe I need to be involved with making any new contributions, edits or further use of Wikipedia information in the future.  If there's anyone associated with Wikipedia management, editorial staff or who's a general contributor who cares to evaluate the situation and make a comment I'll be happy to read their point of view.


 * You really need to read and understand WP:COI. Most Wikipedians, as per the opening WP:COI paragragh, have a strong aversion to seeing articles created or editted by either the subject matter, family or friends. No offense, but that is just the way Wikipedia is. I recommend you please do not edit an article about your son because then it would become what some may perceive as a Autobiography and a conflict of interest which affects the article's neutral point of view. Once another editor feels that those lines have been crossed, you and the article become subject to Wikipedia policy.


 * If you find errors in the article, please request a change on the article talkpage or file a report as per its talkpage at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.


 * The very last thing you should do is what you have done:


 * You over-rode or reverted the change I told I was going to make. - Being accused of a COI and reverting another editor, no matter how good your intentions, will mostly draw you a warning.
 * Blanking or erasing the page. - This is typically the reaction of an editor who is asking for someone to nominate the article for deletion.
 * You have continued to take down a maintenance tag/banner that you should do because you are considered in violation of WP:COI.


 * As an editor, who reviews recent changes/pages, your edits caught my attention. I tried to correct the article as best I could but your continued edits will bring you and the article more administrative attention.


 * The best thing I can tell you is that you have to have a thick skin to survive on Wikipedia. If you do not like its policies and go contra them, you will not like it here and will find life miserable. I sincerely suggest you read all the applicable blue wikilinks I have provided you and ask that you understand this is not meant negatively towards you or your son. That is easy for me to say because I am not at the brunt of your perceived spear.


 * I also need to inform you that I will restore the maintenance banner in two minutes after I finish this message. PLEASE DO REMOVE THE BANNER or CONTINUE EDITTING your son's article. Use the talkpage to request changes. If that fails, file a report with the WP:BLP noticeboard. Ronbo76 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Shelfer. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Bsroiaadn 06:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To Ronbo76, Bsroiaadn and RHaworth:

Regarding: Michael Shelfer

Thank you for your comments. As a neophyte to Wikipedia, I appreciate your willingness to educate me regarding Wikipedia's article posting policies. Had I had prior knowledge of those policies, I would not have posted the article to begin with (even though there was no intention on my part to promote Michael Shelfer). Now, I understand. Historically, I've experienced hostile attacks against a website on the Internet and also virus attacks against my own personal computer. Anti-virus software has cost me plenty over the years. When RHaworth redirected the link, applied the COI tag and made his comments, I reacted defensively because I perceived it to be a personal and hostile attack against the posting, vandalism, if you will. If I own Mr. RHaworth an apology, then of course, I apologize. I would have preferred Mr. RHaworth to have had the courtesy to have sent me a brief note explaining the reason for his actions. I feel that would have been the more professional way to have conducted his edit. In the future if the article remains on Wikipedia, I'll take no further action with respect to editing or changing the article in any way. If the managing editors of Wikipedia feel the article is in violation of Wikipedia convention and its continued existence on Wikipedia has no merit, then they should remove it; the sooner, the better. I would prefer its removal to having it continue to exist with the COI moniker on it. Once again, thank you for your willingness to educate me and the time it took you to do it. (FAShelfer 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC))


 * FAShelfer, while adding content in this case is strongly discouraged, if the article is kept you are free to remove any unsourced edits per Biographies of living persons and Attribution. If there is a disagreement about the reliability of a source, you are free to discuss this on the article's talk page.
 * If you're sure you want the article deleted, you can request this by adding to its page. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-18t17:39z

Proposed deletion of File:MedievalMeRed largePNG2.PNG


The file File:MedievalMeRed largePNG2.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)