User talk:Schmidly

re David J. Schmidly
I note that you have removed cited material from the above article, namely the Criticism section. Given your account name, it is entirely possible that you are either the article subject or closely connected. Wikipedia works to the premise that all content is verifiable, and especially in the case of Biographies of living persons that potentially contentious material is referenced to a reputable source. If you feel that the links are either not independent enough, or are being selectively quoted, then you should make your comments known at the article talkpage. If you believe that the comments are damaging then you may need to contact WP:OFFICE detailing your complaints. Please note that Wikipedia attempts to reflect a neutral position on all its articles, and thus publishes only that which is in the public domain. I hope that you understand the encyclopedia's position in this matter. Lastly, I would point you toward WP:COI and WP:LEGAL should you be minded to attempt to resolve this matter outside of the processes I have pointed you toward. Out of process editing may not prove ultimately beneficial to any of the parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your comments, but I do take issue with ability of some users to post "critisms" about living people, that are based on blogs and gossip in local papers. I am not the subject of the article, but a relative that is interested in the publishing of factual information.  I'll follow your guidance, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidly (talk • contribs)

February 2009
The recent edit you made to David J. Schmidly constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. -- Menti  fisto  17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Schmidly
A tag has been placed on User:Schmidly, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which 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 guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

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), 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 admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been restored
Following a discussion at BLP noticeboard the article criticism section has been blanked, and I have unblocked your account (I have attempted to remove the autoblock, but this sometimes does not work - leave a note here if still unable to edit). Please note your userpage has also been deleted as advertising, please review WP:USER to see what is permitted. I suggest you follow through with any ongoing discussion with the Office, for a more permanent resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)