User talk:Rl10452

Diminished value
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Diminished value, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090612112318AAqGGQc. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Appraisal bumping
A tag has been placed on Appraisal bumping requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Appraisal bumping


The article Appraisal bumping has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This appears to be a made up term, there are no Google hits

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. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Insurance appraisal clause


A tag has been placed on Insurance appraisal clause, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Yash t  101  :)  15:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at diminished value, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Your repeated insertion of diminishedvalueofgeorgia.com into multiple articles over the last few years is a concern.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cantaloupe2,


 * I am the original creator of the Diminished Value page, I am a licensed auto appraiser and an authority on this particular subject. I have testified in court under this subject matter, and provide training for attorneys requiring assistance handling these claims. I did not know how else to discuss the 17c formula without linking back to a page on my website that talks about it. I did not want to copy-paste from my site. If you research the topic, you will see that my website has the most comprehensive information there is on the topic. I do understand your zeal and appreciate your efforts in removing links that violate the rules, I was not aware that this linking was prohibited and apologize for any inconvenience. Would it be beneficial if I draft a document that explains this 17c formula and link back to it?


 * If you watch the CBC report reference in the page, you will see me in it. My website is also linked to from the CBC website.


 * Please let me know what you want me to do next to improve on this article. Thank you. Antoine Rached- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl10452 (talk • contribs)


 * It was extremely obvious that you have a conflict of interest and its no surprise that you represent the website. It remains clear that you use your account specifically to promote your website as shown by your edit history. I'm not convinced you "were not aware". WP:ARTSPAM explains. The deletion notice given to you in March 2012 explains this in the link attached. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cantaloupe, I respect and appreciate your feedback and reply. My point was, I am the original creator of this page, I did so because Diminished Value is a legal concept that is evolving and our research and our appraisal services are used in actual claims and in court cases. I understand that there is a fine line between advertising and providing information on a subject and I stand corrected if I crossed that line. My question to you remains, what parameters can I operate under to make this page better moving forward? Per your request, I will not be posting links back to pages on my diminishedvalueofgeorgia website, but If I have legal document pertinent to the topic at hand can I post them? Can those docs (.pdf) be hosted on my site? I understand that you gave me a warning and if I violate it you will black list the site, I accept that, but would posting pdf files that contain no advertising linkback acceptable? I thank you for your hard work in policing wikipedia and look forward to your reply. AR- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl10452 (talk • contribs)

The fact that you have a commercial interest in the topic you're discussing and that you're citing your own page presents a serious conflict of interest issue. Here are some reading materials: WP:COI explains that you're STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from making edits on subjects you can't do so impartially but suggests that you use request edit to have someone else (a random, impartial party) on Wikipedia make the edit for you. WP:V, WP:RS explains the need for verifiability of contents by reliably published secondary sources. Finally, WP:GNG gives a good idea of what article is worthy of inclusion. WP:SPIP explains it is not for self promotion. Finally, someone pointed out WP:CFORK. This is not a dictionary and it is inappropriate to make an article on every diminished value related catch phrases. If there are other sources that establish the notability of a specific case, a legal case can be used, but on its own, a legal case does not merit inclusion as it is something that you selected for inclusion.

I also couldn't locate any credible third party publications on Georgia 17c. There's an "expert opinion" on allexpert who refutes the vality and that appears to be a notch above most traffic generating sites. yields mostly junk sites, and if the filter is removed, it appears to be mostly your own SEO attempts. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cantaloupe, the 17c formula is based on paragraph 17 of the Mabry v. State Farm court case that established first party diminished value claims in the state of Georgia. This is not a made-up formula but what most insurance carriers use to pay their insureds under a claim. The 17c formula is inaccurate and wrong, and since I have testified in court as an expert witness in the mater, it makes my input in the topic very relevant. I am not trying to argue, I just want to point out that information relevant to diminished value should be included in that page that is why I linked to the 17c page on my site. Do you suggest that I  write a new page covering 17c or the Mabry court case in detail?  I will no longer link to my site. Thank you so much. Antoine Rached.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl10452 (talk • contribs)


 * Before someone can use you as an expert witness, you need to have been published on a relevant matter in reliable sources. See WP:SPS. Self proclaimed experts are not considered as an expert without validation of their expertise. Even so, to cite yourself as "expert" is a COI. "what most insurance carriers use" also needs to be validated by a secondary source, i.e. books and news reports from reliable publishers/outlets with reputation for fact checking oversight. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cantaloupe, Thank you so much for your quick reply. I was deemed an expert witness in the matter by a Georgia court, in addition, the CBC report cited in the diminished value page has me in it as a main charter. In any event, I will compile the third party documents you are requesting and will run them by you before I edit or publish anything else on the subject. I sincerely appreciate your help and support in this matter. We will talk soon. Thank you. AR- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl10452 (talk • contribs)


 * The idea of expert in research and academic is different from court cases. When a licensed professional makes a testimony in common law court systems as such in the United States, he/she's referred to as Expert_witness. This does not mean that he can come to Wikipedia and start writing about topics in his field or about himself and write from his knowledge as "expert source". An example is well known, published physicist making a commentary. It would then be acceptable to say "Mr. xxxx" states that "physics comment". If this, WP:RS or WP:SPS does not answer your question to your satisfaction, you can ask about it on reliable source noticeboard. Can you find academic text (i.e. schools of law) or in depth media coverage discussing the said legal case as significant?  A ton of cases are filed and opinions come from court every day. This doesn't mean that each and everyone of them is suitable for encyclopedia use. As i already said, if there's general consensus on significance of the case, it is worthy of mentionCantaloupe2 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thank you. AR- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rl10452 (talk • contribs)

Diminished value page
The page is cleaned up, but the contents are lacking just as it was to begin with. The idea of diminished value could use an expansion, for example addition of studies on effect of repair on value. As I pointed out before WP:RS gives you a good idea on what sources are good. Your websites are not one of them. Please do not use Wikipedia as a medium to advertise either through blatant external links or through references. Same goes for your user page, which was deleted by an administrator. You can use the talk page of the article and propose edits by so neutral parties without conflict can make an edit and screen out any materials of advertising nature. It's also highly encouraged that you disclose your conflict of interest on the talk page as you make the request. Direct editing by you on this topic is highly discouraged. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)