User talk:Mandyvandeven

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Centre Georges Pompidou, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Centre Georges Pompidou was changed by Mandyvandeven (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-06-03T18:55:40+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Indian Premier League. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Indian Premier League was changed by Mandyvandeven (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-06-03T19:02:09+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Nakaaya Sumari, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Nakaaya Sumari was changed by Mandyvandeven (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-06-03T19:09:10+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to Sex-positive feminism. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Dick, can you explain how these are vandalism or inappropriate? I am adding more information that is relevant to the wiki pages.
 * Your constant posting of links to your blog on a number of unrelated articles appears to be self-promotion in violation of WP:SPAM. Since your username matches the byline of the blog posts, your links also seem to be in violation of No original research. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So one is not allowed to add to pages one has researched for articles one has written about themselves, even if the information is completely relevant and useful to the Wiki audience?
 * Please read No original research. "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." I don't think that the blog you are referencing meets that threshold. Additionally, the references that you are adding are often redundant and seem to indicate an agenda of self-promotion. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as that is a matter of opinion, what is the process for appealing this warning?


 * It is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of policy. Also, the only appeals that would be necessary would be if you continue this line of edits and find yourself blocked in doing so through administrative action. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Bitch itself might be considered a reliable source for some articles, blogs by general definition have undergone no editorial filtering or fact-checking, and thus generally fail our test for verifiability. Add to that the fact that you've been posting links to blog postings by you, which is generally a violation of our rules on conflict of interest. If there is information you feel needs to get out there, try to find sources that are not blog posts, and not by you or your immediate circle of friends. If a topic is genuinely notable, there should be other coverage; did nobody on the whole planet, for example, publish anything about the feminist porn awards? (By "publish" we mean something more edited and controlled than a blog post.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines.

You can discuss this issue at WP:COIN. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For instance, your user name is very similar to the author of a citation you added to the planned parenthood article. I'm assuming you're the same person as that author.  If true, you need to identify yourself on the talk page and propose your addition to the article. Mattnad (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)