User talk:Adotrde

A Belated Welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Adotrde. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Jtmedia01.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jtmedia01.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

You need to provide a reason or reasons why the image needs to be on the page. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline We hope (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robb Thompson. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you are currently at 3rr again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of your editing behaviour now here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have responded there. :) Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Adotrde. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Message added 09:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions regarding the 3RR notice and about my behaviour and what part of it was wrong? I'm slightly confused and hope you can clear it up for me so I don't make the same mistake again. :) When an editor reverts me, saying that my references are not good enough, adds the "no citation given" for a particular sentence or two, and I go back and add new references, does that construct as a revert? And 3 of those and he can report me? Also I added a KTBN-TV page, and he said that particular page was written by their marketing department and not news department and I'm not allowed to use it. Is that correct? Thank you so much! Alexandra Adotrde (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get back to you on that one shortly.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to answer your question; you actually violated WP:3RR, which is in fact a blockable offense. In fact, I would have blocked your account if I'd seen his report in a more timely matter. it really doesn't even matter if he was refusing to talk or being obstinate; 3RR is a bright red line that is not to be crossed except in some very limited circumstances (notably: reverting obvious vandalism - see WP:VANDNOT if it's ever unclear, removing WP:BLP violations, and reverting a user who is blocked/banned and is misbehaving by editing under another screenname). However, please note that continued edit warring may end up with you being blocked even without a 3RR violation; I usually say that because, obnoxiously, users will continue to revert day after day after day - which doesn't appear to be happening in this case Robb Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pokerviewlogo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pokerviewlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Abclogofinal.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Abclogofinal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greener Living Soap Nuts[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Greener Living Soap Nuts[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Greener Living Soap Nuts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. KarlM (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

IronFX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Benchmark, Platforms, Desktop, Global, Banks, FX, CFD, Support, Service and Frontrunner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important note[edit]

You did properly show notability for Protica, so that one's okay. But all the articles you've been putting up for Protica's products are just... they're just so much promo material BUY THIS DRINK THIS IT'S WONDERFUL HERE'S HOW WONDERFUL IT IS TRUST MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Rather than delete them outright, I've been converting them into redirects to the Protica article. Iff you can make legitimate articles out of them, I will allow those putative articles to remain. But for now, they're redirects.

When you think they are ready, I strongly recommend you get them checked by a more experienced user. DS (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Can I Retire?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wellness (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) 10:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Now What? A Guide to Retirement During Volatile Times, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Goals and Lifestyle (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) 10:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Fnibrokers.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fnibrokers.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

ABCs of attraction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Relationship and Asian stereotypes

JT Tran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Relationship and Asian stereotypes

First National Innovation Brokers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Private

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Can I Retire? for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Can I Retire? 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/Can I Retire? 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. KarlM (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Magic PDF Editor[edit]

A tag has been placed on Magic PDF Editor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. KarlM (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First National Innovation Brokers[edit]

All of the references given in the article are fabrications. Some are simply ads (the HuffPoUnion, firstnationalib.com). I have access to the journals cited and none of them mention FNIB at all, despite the lengths you seem to have gone through to make it look like there are legitimate, serious sources for it. Please stop with this kind of editing; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. KarlM (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sunkist Energy[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Sunkist Energy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. KarlM (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sunkist Protein[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Sunkist Protein, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. KarlM (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious references[edit]

Looking at some edits you have made, there are some serious questions about references used in these articles:

First National Innovation Brokers[edit]

This source reads in a very promotional fashion, making it dubious under WP:SOURCES. Furthermore, it is credited to the Huffington Post, but the actual source is the Huffington Post Union of Bloggers, a separate organisation, making the article improperly sourced.
This source doesn't mention bitcoin, yet it seems to be used as a source for the bitcoin claim. In fact, Trademarkia is a search engine.
This source mentions bitcoin, but the link is from the subject, plus the page contains promotional claims - the use of this is problematic, as per WP:SOURCES, which limits the use of self-published sources to certain circumstances.

Magic PDF Editor[edit]

This source and this source use the same phrasing as the official site. This source has similar text (though not 100% copied) as the official site. The CNET links don't have the same problems, though only one is needed, as they both point to the same link.

Protica[edit]

This reference has a very promotional tone, as does this.
[fordhamroadbid.org/04%2016%2007%20Forbes%20Enterprise%20Awards.pdf This reference] mentions the company as an award winner, but no more detail. Worse, it is an advertisement (labelled at the top), thus failing WP:RS.
This reference is a blog, as is this failing WP:SELFPUBLISH.
This reference has a promotional tone.
This reference seems to be related to a promotion by the company - in any case it is published by Radar Online, which doesn't seem to meet WP:RS.
This reference seems to be related to the same promotion in the previous link.
This reference is promotional in tone.

In short, these sources do not meet the criteria for reliable sources - this is a matter of concern, as verifiability is a core policy of wikipedia. Indeed, many of them seem promotional. Autarch (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up Mr. Autarch's concerns, I am more alarmed by some of the sources that appear to be complete fabrications. The last three published sources at First National Innovation Brokers appear to significantly predate the formation of that entity. Indeed, the full text of "Coalition Government Formation and Foreign Exchange Markets: Theory and Evidence from Europe" is available online, and I cannot find any mention of that firm there. This same problem existed at the now deleted Can I Retire? and Now What? A Guide to Retirement During Volatile Times. I would appreciate clarification before you make any other edits to mainspace. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this was a non-optional question. As you have been adding fraudulent material to Wikipedia, I have blocked this account until you respond - this is a serious problem. Kuru (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Protica for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Protica 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/Protica 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 template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Satiagram[edit]

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

Neologism - Google searches for this term turn up nothing reliable. The original contributor has since been blocked for making up references, so I don't think we can assume the offline ones are accurate.

While all 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Intuitive nutrition[edit]

The article Intuitive nutrition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A mix of spam and original research of a neologism. I can't find any reliable references about this term in google scholar or google books. The original contributor is blocked for faking references and had a history of spamming.

While all 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of J.D. Masterson[edit]

The article J.D. Masterson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any coverage about this author in reliable sources. The original contributor is blocked for faking references and had a history of spamming.

While all 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of J.D. Masterson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J.D. Masterson 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/J.D. Masterson 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 template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ironfx.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ironfx.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]