User talk:Tdreyer

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
 * The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/back-in-business-of-stirring-up-trouble.html) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly.	Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source.	Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
 * Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites.	 For more information about me, see my FAQ page.	 Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:The rag.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:The rag.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Rag Covers.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Rag Covers.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Webb Dreyer
Hi. Great article! I've finished Wikilinking it  for you. Please check through  and see if there any  I  have missed. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Marilyn Buck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Underground (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited The Rag Blog, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Ross and Founder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome (belated)
Hello, Tdreyer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Potential conflict of interest
Hello, Tdreyer. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Red Pen and Welcoming Committee. I have been engaged in a discussion with PeterWesco, but I don't know if you see that conversation. So I'd like to share what I just said to him:


 * I just want you to know that all the work I've done on Wikipedia has been in absolute good faith. I did read the guidelines about COI and other relevant issues and I understood them to be cautions, with the bottom line being that the work be compatible with the aims of Wikipedia -- that it be accurate and neutral. I do not believe that I have violated that dictum in any of my work here -- but if you believe that I have, then I must say that it was never my intent. I understand and respect what you are doing with this discussion. I use Wikipedia every day in my work and if I couldn't trust its reliability, it would be useless to me. I understand that it is the responsibility of Wikipedia and its editors to make certain that the work is accurate and unbiased and is presented in a neutral fashion. And you have necessary procedures in place to carry out that task. I would hope that the process could be cooperative, however, and not adversarial. Please let me know when I can be of any assistance. Tdreyer (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Tdreyer

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. PeterWesco (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I would like to talk about this issue of conflict of interest but I find the discussion process confusing. (I find it less user-friendly than the actual editing!) What is the appropriate way for me to respond to PeterWesco and TheRedPenOfDoom? Thank you. Tdreyer (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Tdreyer (talk)
 * Hello, here is the noticeboard:  Conflict of interest noticeboard and here are the posted policies regarding the topics discussed:  WP:COI WP:AUTO  WP:SPIP  WP:SPA PeterWesco (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your assistance. My reading of Wikipedia COI (and other) guidelines is that, after other considerations are taken into account, the final criterion is that work should meet Wikipedia standards. That it should be accurate, objective, and verifiable. I have been editing on Wikipedia for more than two years and I am unaware of my work ever having been questioned or reedited for reasons of accuracy or bias. And everything I have done has been backed up with extensive referencing from highly-credible sources. Are there specific questions of accuracy regarding any editing that I have done? Tdreyer (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Tdreyer
 * The issue with WP:COI and WP:AUTO is that once they are discovered the articles are going to be edited and cleaned up. It did take a while for someone to notice, but now that is has been noticed it has the potential of causing the original editor a lot of pain/stress/aggravation when WikiPedia editors start to rewrite the articles for WP:NPOV and WP:GNG.  For instance, the articles are full of WP:WEASEL words, vast sections are unsourced, vast sections are opinion, vast sections are going to be removed, and in the end they potentially will not look anything like they do today.   Additionally, when someone starts editing Margaret Webb Dreyer it might be too much for someone who is directly related to her to handle...  especially if she or her son is simply put up for AfD (Articles for Deletion) and the articles are deleted from Wikipedia. It is for all of these reasons that WP:AUTO, WP:SELF, WP:COI are highly cautioned against/prevented from doing.  PeterWesco (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want you to know that all the work I've done on Wikipedia has been in absolute good faith. I did read the guidelines about COI and other relevant issues and I understood them to be cautions, with the bottom line being that the work be compatible with the aims of Wikipedia -- that it be accurate and neutral. I do not believe that I have violated that dictum in any of my work here -- but if you believe that I have, then I must say that it was never my intent. I understand and respect what you are doing with this discussion. I use Wikipedia every day in my work and if I couldn't trust its reliability, it would be useless to me. I understand that it is the responsibility of Wikipedia and its editors to make certain that the work is accurate and unbiased and is presented in a neutral fashion. And you have necessary procedures in place to carry out that task. I would hope that the process could be cooperative, however, and not adversarial. Please let me know when I can be of any assistance. Tdreyer (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Tdreyer
 * Understood on all issues.    PeterWesco (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)