User talk:Stueynet

Campography
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Campography, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://campdirector.com. 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.

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) 16:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Campography
A tag has been placed on Campography, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article 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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The Llama! (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Campography
A tag has been placed on Campography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. This is not the place to promote your website, period. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Patti Starr
Hello, I reverted your edits. I note from your comments that Ms. Starr is your mother. Since you have a close personal relationship with the subject, your edits will inevitably be biased. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons. This policy explains why your edits have violated several important points. Your edits also are violating WP:Verifiability by not providing reputable sources for your edits. The contention that your mother served 6 weeks in jail is a first hand account which violates WP:No original research. On this point I have so far found one source (Canadian Annual Review of Politics and Public Affairs: 1991) that says four months. However, several newspaper sources state a two month stay so I have given the benefit of the doubt and listed the shorter stay.

On the subject of the infobox "Known for" comment, The purpose of that entry is to show the notability of the person. Your mother is mainly notable for her participation in the election scandal of the late 1980s. The fact that she was chair of Ontario Place is interesting but is not the main notability of this article. You might read the policy on WP:Notability.

Please note that since you have a close connection to this article, any further edits you make may be reverted. If you continue to persist on editing here, you may be blocked from editing. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What is your interest in selecting the most negative possible data about her? Just curious what exactly your motivation is? Stueynet (talk)
 * My motivation is to provide the most accurate information on a subject using Wikipedia editing guidelines. I have no prejudice for or against Patti Starr, I am just seeking to create the most accurate and neutral portrayal possible. Sometimes that means discussing controversial incidents which may be construed as negative. You cannot deny that these incidents did not happen to her. All this information is available in the public record. The goal of Wikipedia is to present the facts and then let the reader make their own subjective interpretation. Wikipedia is not a place to show people's biographies in the best light. That is what personal websites and memoirs are for. I am currently continuing my research on this subject and will get back to finishing this article soon. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is fine but her occupation is a pretty good example of where she would be the one with the best knowledge on the subject. I don't see why you are so hung up on calling a woman with 4 published books a researcher. Also we have documentation on other matters that we will be uploading so my suggestion would be that for all of the changes you have made to this article, you provide real sources. Not newspaper clippings. There was no source provided for the amount of time she was away form her family. My mother is going to great expense to get the actual documents that show here time spent at Vanier so that you (whoever you are) can be satisfied. I guess for you its a win to be able to create any kind of ripple on this planet. Well to you sir I say well done. For whatever mysterious reason you glommed on to this article and now your life has purpose. I hope this will make you happy that we are spending money so that we can show the truth. We have also appealed to higher powers in the organization to understand why the onus is on the actual subject of the article to provide proof, where you the editor is allowed to provide any web link as proof of something. For example, Justice Wren's comments. Did he only have a 1 sentence comment? No but for you its easy to select the negative part and use that. Again your motivations are (hopefully) your own. Finally as I said before, we are both happy to meet with you in person and discuss the matter. I don't hide behind a fake identity as you do so if you want to come out and talk like adults, let me know. Stueynet (talk)

Reference Errors on 4 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Patti Starr page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=593889746 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%0A%0A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Fdiff%3D593889746%20Patti Starr%5D Ask for help])

Patti Starr affair
I commented on recent changes on the article talk page. Please contribute to the discussion before making further changes. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)