User talk:Mfs104

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mfs104, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Sandy Tanner, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sandy Tanner[edit]

The article Sandy Tanner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Senator Sheldon Scott may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

newspaper editing, sales and marketing etc. Leaving the Barnacle in 2001 he joined the staff of [National Public Relations as a Public Relations Consultant and further developed skills in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sandy Tanner[edit]

The article Sandy Tanner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet criteria for notability at WP:POLITICIAN

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sandy Tanner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sandy Tanner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Tanner until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page International Young Democrat Union has been reverted.
Your edit here to International Young Democrat Union was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/InternationalYoungDemocratUnion/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 11:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on International Young Democrat Union. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mfs104. 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 have a conflict 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.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia: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. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Scott[edit]

The article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. In this case the copied page was clearly labelled as copyright, so there is nothing to discuss. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. The copied website has no attributed author, no sources and looks as if it could have been written by Scott. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, or they will be deleted.
For info, just his name should be used as the article title, like Barack Obama, Albert Einstein, Angela Merkel Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dana Gordon[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dana Gordon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://iydu-network.org/about-2/iydu-board-2014-2015/dana-gordon/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page International Young Democrat Union, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to International Young Democrat Union was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/InternationalYoungDemocratUnion/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 13:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at International Young Democrat Union shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Neither your edits nor the IP editors appear to be blatant vandalism, but rather a difference of opinion. Work it out on the talk page.

Vandalism of International Young Democrat Union[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at International Young Democrat Union, you may be blocked from editing.

The IYDU is being recognized as “affiliated” within IDU. That is because IYDU has its own Constitution. The IDU Executive can stop recognizing IYDU as affiliated in cases of violations of the IDU rules and regulations. It has no right though to dissolve IYDU, violate the rights of the elected Officers, call a Council Meeting unilaterally or impose constitutional changes, since IYDU is a self constituted Youth Organisation. For more information please see http://www.iydu.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.129.161 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IDU (a registered and protected organisation) recognise the IYDU as chaired by Charlotte Spurkeland as their official youth wing. Two level 3 warnings have now been submitted to talk. Please see the official IDU website www.idu.org and the website of their official youth wing http://www.iydu-network.org. The reversal of information on the IYDU website constitutes a clear intention to mislead readers into an assumption that the International Democrat Union recognises an alternate group as its official youth wing.
- Have you stopped to consider that there might be two organizations with the name International Young Democrat Union? The one you are trying to write about and the one that the IP is trying to write about. The fact that two separate websites are cited really bolsters this notion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to International Young Democrat Union. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.
Your edit here to International Young Democrat Union was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/IYDUOfficial) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

July 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at International Young Democrat Union. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]