User talk:Virginvoice

Conflict of interest
If you are affiliated with 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, 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Hairhorn (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. ''You lied straight out. This only strengthens our argument that your repeated addition of the link is nothing more than spam. Dawnseeker2000 ''  21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry you feel this way and your use of the term liar is highly highly inappropriate and offensive. You are violating your own guidelines in my opinion by engaging in an unwarranted personal attack and defaming me at the same time.

The website for news and media is legitimate. http://virginvoices.vi/Home

Your mediation person emailed me the folloiwng: Hello. I don't think we've communicated before - I've looked over your site and I /think/ it will be considered reliable. Of course, no one person can judge whether a source is reliable or not. If you think there's a likely consensus among Wikipedia editors that your site is reliable, then by all means feel free to use it.

-xav

So I respectfully object and am offended by the term "liar."

Virginvoice (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait
Please wait until there is an action taken here on Wikipedia before placing that link in any article. Wait until there is an indication that all of us here can see and react to before making any more moves.

Your request for mediation is stale; there has been no communication there that indicates anyone said that the link is acceptable. Dawnseeker2000  22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.