Hi PrincessKannapolis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hell In A
Bucket (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PrincessKannapolis. 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 or close connection to the subject.
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 Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
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. You have stated that you are a representative of one or more clients here. this diff encompasses your statement. I can tell you that you need to exercise extreme care when you have a Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia does not take kindly to being manipulated. If it is your intent to manipulate, and I am not accusing you of it, then you need to walk away and do so now.FiddleFaddle 11:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Baugher 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. FiddleFaddle 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Ged UK. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Kelly Baugher because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! GedUK 14:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Kelly Baugher. 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, 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. Thank you. FiddleFaddle 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identical (film) 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. FiddleFaddle 17:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Murdock 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. FiddleFaddle 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from comments like "I am representative of this client... I am to supervise this Wikipedia article", and from your edit-warring and accusations of vandalism, that there are many things you do not understand about Wikipedia.
Nobody owns a Wikipedia article. From the moment you post it, it is Wikipedia's article, not yours, and other users can and will edit it. If you want a place where you can control and "supervise" the articles you write, this is not the site for you. Page protection will not be used to help you defend your preferred version.
Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion of any kind. Using Wikipedia to write about subjects, such as your clients, where you have a WP:Conflict of interest is very strongly discouraged. Before editing again, please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Once again, if you are looking for a place to promote your clients, Wikipedia is not the site for you.
Disagreement about article contents should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. Edit warring is not allowed, and results in blocks, because if permitted articles would end in the form preferred by the most obstinate edit-warrior.
Vandalism refers only to deliberate attempts to damage the encyclopedia, and accusations of vandalism should not be flung about during a content dispute.
Serious conflict of interest and paid advocacy[edit]
It is high time you stopped promoting your client(s). Wikipedia most heartily disagrees with paid advocacy and advertising non notable items though the usage of paid PR and other experts. What will happen here is that you get blocked from here permanently. Since you have stated in your own words that Kelly Baugher is your client, it cannot be any more obvious that this is paid advocacy. You have been warned clearly enough and have chosen to disregard that warning.
You have discovered recently that you are under scrutiny and were blocked for transgression of one of our simpler rules. Immediately you returned from your block you have returned to editing your client's article. Now is the time to cease and desist. If your client is notable then others will handle it. Your insistence on editing it does her and you no credit. If she is not notable then the article will be deleted. FiddleFaddle 10:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Justin Murdock.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Justin Murdock.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GBfan 02:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for repeated removal of maintenance tags on Kelly Baugher[edit]
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kelly Baugher, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Warning for repeated removal of maintenance tags (citation needed, COI, BLP-primary sources).Thomas.Wtalk to me 06:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at David H. Murdock, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. It seems wholly disingenuous to remove a COI template when you have what can only be described as an enormous conflict of interest.FiddleFaddle 09:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is little sympathy for paid advocacy here[edit]
What you are discovering is that Wikipedians are resolutely polite, and have little sympathy or tolerance for paid advocacy. You seem unable or unwilling to understand this, and do not enter into dialogue with anyone who has warned you about it, seeming to choose to plough your own furrow. It even appears that you drove a coach and horses through your short block by using another account, something that is being investigated by the correct team here.
By now you ought to have got the message that your client, however wonderful her many attributes, fails WP:GNG. This means that her article will be deleted (0.9 probability), along with other material that you have touched in your relentless campaign to seek to establish her notability, and, quite possibly, to disparage her one time boyfriend.
You are, yourself, heading for an indefinite block. You may think that you can get around that by operating other accounts, and, for a short while, that may be so. In the long term all you will succeed in doing is in getting yourself a particularly bad name. That, surely, is an image a PR person can do without.
My strong advice is that you take a substantial pause from here. When you come back, if you come back, please do so with due regard for the fact that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to puff and promote your client. Puffery and promotion will always fail. However good you think you are, if they are not notable then they are not notable. As you have seen, once we get a sniff of something amiss, we, the community, are relentless in dealing with it.
Instead of puffery and promotion, why not have fun here? Edit articles as a hobby. Hobbyist editors are always welcome. FiddleFaddle 10:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Guinevere Van Seenus.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Guinevere Van Seenus.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GBfan 11:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Murdock 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. FiddleFaddle 09:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tracy Murdock has been listed in national magazine for her interior design work. Go read her website for editorial clippings on her in addition to Googling her name. She has enough references and notability to have won awards as an interior designer. In addition, she is the former wife of both high net worth individuals, David Murdock and Bijan_(designer) who are both listed on Wikipedia with her name CLEARLY referenced BEFORE I began editing ANYTHING. STOP saying I am a representative of this person. I added further information upon discovery! I do not know this person. There is no conflict of interest! You people are absurd. PrincessKannapolisPrincessKannapolis 05:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PrincessKannapolis. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page. Message added 14:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
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. Thomas.Wtalk to me 14:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mark MacInnis Kelly Baugher Charles Agapiou with models at Camilo Pardo Solo Exhibition to benefit the Carroll Shelby Foundation.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
So, as you are learning the hard way, wikipedia can be a bit tough on beginners. :-) I'd like to help you out, if you'll let me. You can reply here, or message me at my talkpage. Preferably in lowercase, if your keyboard supports it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, eh? :-) Hope you are doing well, ping my talkpage when you have a moment. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I understand I was blocked for what other editors deemed to be advertising or promotion. I will in the future promise not to add an article or factual, neutral point-of-view content without having the reference at hand to add at the same time. I would like to be unblocked and will be much more careful in the future. I would like to also formerly state that I am not following Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and will only publish from now on sources that abide by this rule. I was not aware what a reliable source was. If unblocked, I will do more research to make sure sources fit proper criteria for Wikipedia. Lastly, I will make sure to be more communicative with other editors as messages arise.PrincessKannapolis (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Your request addresses the issues of adequate sourcing and communication, which is good, but says nothing about the issue of conflict of interest. You have stated that one of your article subjects is your client, and many of the others seem to form a related cluster. Editing Wikipedia on behalf of clients is very strongly discouraged, but seems to be your main purpose here. Please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Would you agree, if unblocked, to edit only in accordance with those principles? JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
After much talk going on in this section and learning on my behalf, I would like an administrator to review me once again to unblock my username. I will take what I have learned and apply it to my future editing at Wikipedia, if given the opportunity to contribute once again and abide by the rules on Wikipedia's guidelines to my knowledge and hopefully be cooperative in communicating when receiving a message or taking into account how other editors are editing my edits and carefully review why they did it. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
This request is good progress, but you haven't exactly answered the question the last reviewing admin asked you, and I'd need to see you answer it specifically before I felt comfortable unblocking you: if you are unblocked, will you commit to following the guidelines set down in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide? That would include openly disclosing when you have a conflict of interest - any conflict of interest - on a topic and not editing any article about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients (or the clients of a company you are working for - whether your affiliation is direct or indirect doesn't matter), or your competitors. You would be allowed to make requests and suggestions on such articles' talk pages, but not edit the articles themselves. Is this something you're willing to abide by? Not just "I will follow Wikipedia's rules" or "I will follow WP:COI", but "I will follow those specific rules from the plain-and-simple guide, which involves not editing articles I have been or will be compensated for editing or influencing, and I will always disclose when I make requests on the talk page of an article I have a COI on"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Sorry for my oversight on answering the question. I will commit to following the guidelines in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, which go beyond the issues I stated. I will disclose when I am a conflict of interest as such on the article submission on Kelly, which that I am a friend and am not being compensated for this work. I do not know or affiliate myself with any of the other articles I have edited or added. I am fully aware of this now and am willing to once again abide by this. Once again, I am not being compensated for any of this work and have edited in good faith that this information was valuable to Wikipedia upon discovering references to support these facts and thinking they were noteworthy and on notable biographical living people. If I do in fact have a conflict of interest on an article, I will request this in the talk page, which can then be reviewed by an administrator on Wikipedia.PrincessKannapolis (talk) 1:05 am, Yesterday (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
I would be willing to grant this unblock request were it not for the very strong evidence that you have used another account. You have not commented on the case presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrincessKannapolis/Archive, and I'd like to hear from you how you are related to User:Mstaton617 before addressing this request. Yunshui雲水 08:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
That's my friend from USC who is my future business partner in my web company. He was helping me out the other day with our business plan. We're starting up a company together. May I have permission to be unblocked now? I can have him log back on from his IP at home if you want and make edits to show you? PrincessKannapolis (talk) 10:09 pm, 18 November 2013, Monday (10 days ago) (UTC+0)
I understand the miscommunication that I am a conflict of interest on the articles I have edited. However, I would like to formerly state I am not being paid by any of the people or businesses I am editing articles on. I am not in direct affiliation and was editing for one person and found more information upon discovery. I promise not to edit articles from now that would be considered conflict of interest. I am not being paid for this either. I will only edit in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia's guidelines and of the rule stated above. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The primary problem wasn't that you didn't immediately add a reference, it was that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources, because all the "sources" you added were crap, being self-published primary sources, blogs and so on. Obviously not understanding the difference between an encyclopaedia, such as Wikipedia, and social media, such as Facebook and LinkedIn. Thomas.Wtalk to me 17:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hello PrincessK, that is a good start. :-) You are on the road to success. But as noted by Thomas, for your promise to have weight, you need to show you understand some of the policies. I will start a new section below, and we can do questions-and-answers. Once you've got it clear in your mind how things work, then some admin (Thomas and myself are regular editors like you -- there are 30k of us and only about 600 active admins) can come by and check on your unblock request. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no issue with this editor being given a further chance, unless they created a sockpuppet to evade their 24 hour block, when I hold the opposite view. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrincessKannapolis which is, presumably, caught in a backlog. As an unblock condition I believe we need to make clear that any whiff of WP:COI will lead to an immediate reblock. I am concerned about lack of communication. Part of WP:COMPETENCE is communicating with other editors. It took a massive shot across her bows to get any communication, and that was on my talk page and not particularly civil.
Even so I am happy to offer some help to this editor if it is considered valid to give her a further chance. FiddleFaddle 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note before actually unblocking this editor I would like the various admins looking at this trail of woe to consider Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PrincessKannapolis/Archive where it is clear to the closing admin that PK created a sock or meat puppet to edit during her block, thus evading it. Such behaviour is that of a wilful editor. My view on block evasion is hard line. The various admins looking at this case may have different views and accept a categorical assurance over future conduct and an apology to the community. FiddleFaddle 09:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again PrincessKannapolis, this is 74 again. Sorry I was too late to keep you from getting blocked. Please do be aware, that you *can* be unblocked, if you explain to User:Secret that you understand what behavior got you blocked, and promise not to do it again. I can walk you through the process, if you like. It's not that bad; I got blocked once by mistake, too. :-) Hope this helps, you can reply right here with any questions or concerns you have. But do please be WP:NICE, it is essential for getting along around these here parts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, your initial unblock attempt was declined; it was a bit premature, because after all, you were still a bit fuzzy on the reasons for the original block. Your second one may be successful, if you can understand that being a personal friend, like being a favorite grandkid, is inherently WP:COI ... even though no money changes hands, affection changes hands. (Well, okay, not changes hands... but you get the idea.) We are getting closer. Sorry this is all such a pain. But to look on the bright-side, you are getting the all survival-training in a weekend, that most editors take six months to really understand. You'll be a Princess To Be Reckoned With, in short order. :-) Anyways, keep your chin up, and keep your cool, you're doing good. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, thank you 74. Am definitely learning everything now! PrincessKannapolis (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PrincessK, part of wikipedia is that everybody has bias. Some kinds of bias are inherent bias, which are especially touchy nowadays. We do not let people directly edit articles about their gramma, for instance. No matter how hard you try, if you love your gramma, you will not be able to write a neutral article about them! The same problem applies to your edits, about people that are paying you. That does not mean all is lost; but it does mean you should prolly never *directly* edit articles about such folks. Skim the WP:COI guidelines, and please tell me, where should you suggest edits to such articles? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
open book test, eh? still, you should read the guideline, before you check your answer here
Here is my getting-started-survival-manual for folks that edit the articles related to their work. It's a rough-draft-in-progress, but I think it's useful, let me know if anything is unclear.
As you may have gathered by now, many wikipedians are *very* prickly about Spam! That does not mean, however, that all is lost. But there are some specific rules you should be strongly aware of.
First, although you cannot edit under a corporate-name per WP:CORPNAME, it might help you if you disclose your paid relationship right on your userpage, or here at the top of your user-talkpage. You don't have to, of course, but honesty is the best policy.
Second, there is a thing called the Bright Line Rule, which says that you, as a paid professional, are *inherently* not able to *directly* edit the article of your employer, and thus should only *suggest* edits and changes on the talkpage of the article. (If you wait a week and nobody responds, then go ahead and edit the article yourself, leaving a note that you took matters into your own hands on the article-talkpage, under your earlier edit-request-section.)
Third, even when just suggesting something on the talkpage, and especially when editing directly (which you should avoid if possible), you should be careful to specifically use verifiable reliable sources. There are some (rare) cases where you can use the corporations's homepage/pressReleases/etc for info, per WP:ABOUTSELF, but any kind of awards, deals, product info, et cetera simply Does Not Belong in wikipedia unless independent reliable third party sources have covered the award/deal/product/etc. That is how we WP:PROVEIT is in fact a Notable award/deal/product/etc.
Anyhoo, welcome to wikipedia, sorry about all the rules, but they really are for a good reason: if the company and products you are affiliated with *are* Notable enough to deserve their own wikipedia article, or WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to deserve mentioning (without violating WP:UNDUE) in some non-dedicated wikipedia articles, that's a gold star in their cap. Hope this helps. See also, the five pillars below. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((reply to #1)) I am not being paid by anyone to do this, in all honesty. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((reply to #2)) Once again, I am not employed by any of the people associated with the articles. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((reply to #3)) I fully understand now what a reliable source is after reading it. I will not add sources from direct websites of the person or business mentioned in the article unless they're covered by third party sources as well.PrincessKannapolis (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
74, I am not a WP:COI. Wikipedia guidelines on this clearly state, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers", which that I am not. I am not being paid for this work and found further information upon discovery of new references. I understand what WP:COI fully means now though after reading it and will only be adding content based upon that criteria Wikipedia is requiring of editors. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, PrincessK, my impression was that you were getting paid. FiddleFaddle mentioned something, about you talking about your clients. Do you not have a 'business or financial interest' with any of the folks you have been working on, or with the filming/distribution of Identity? In that case, I was confused. ((p.s. moved and indented your comment by adding some colons)) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it because PK stated while requesting the protection of Kelly Baugher that she was the representative of Ms Baugher. This is unusual phraseology if one is not a paid (eg) PR agent. I have quoted the diff of her words in various places, including my own talk page in response to her diatribe there, but am quite happy to accept a categorical assurance that she used the term genuinely as a friend helping a friend for no payment, nor even barter. I am simply advising her in the strongest possible manner that any conflict of interest is, at best, inadvisable for a career editing here. IT took a lot of effort to get her into conversation, and I hope you and she will engage in a fruitful teacher/pupil relationship now we have her attention. I might also add that this essay is one that is helpful. There are others, and any can be read. They all advise broadly the same things. FiddleFaddle 15:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the language in some quotes is definitely confusing... "I am representative of this client. I meant administrator in the sense I am to supervise this Wikipedia article. Sorry for the terminology confusion."[1] PrincessK, the terminology is still confusing me. :-)   when you said that you are the representative of this client, did you really just mean that she was your friend, and that is all? The phrasing is a bit odd. Or maybe somebody else also uses your computer to edit wikipedia? That would explain the disconnect, I guess. Anyways, the terminology aside, this is a clear-cut case of inherent bias... see my story at the top of this section, about the gramma.
PrincessK, you love your gramma, you cannot edit an article Gramma of PrincessK without being biased. You are friends with Kelly, you cannot edit an article Kelly_B without being biased. In such cases, you have to use the talkpage, and suggest your changes ("my gramma is the best cook in the world") for some uninvolved editor to glance over. Does this make sense? p.s. No offense to your gramma, or for that matter, to your friend. Wikipedia is not against having friends! We are just very very careful about bias, especially subtle bias. Even if your friend does not pay you in cash, they compensate you in friendship. One of the most precious commodities in the universe. Hope this helps clarify. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, it was a friend and I am not being paid and I did it as a favor to help out and not for imbursement as a PR agent. Saying my client was the quickest way to get HKnox from continuing to edit false information on the articles as I was fully aware of the work I was doing and they didn't fully read the sources I provided and they continue to cause content warring with me. When I said client, I meant that in the most minimal form. It's unpaid work I enjoy doing for my friends. I will be more careful in the future with my terminology so there is no confusion about the sensitive rules within Wikipedia, if given the opportunity to continue editing (within Wikipedia's guidelines). PrincessKannapolis (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand the conflict of interest rule thoroughly now. I will not edit articles that are deemed COI and use the talk page if I must request something. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you already look like you learned this lesson, I'll put it after the WP:COI section. ;-) We have four pillars here. Here's the link, and here's the list to save you a click.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (nothing more nothing less)
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view (stay fair & stick to the sources)
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit (free as in freedom)
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility (WP:NICE, see also WP:IMAGINE)
Wikipedia does not have firm rules ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.")
You were having some trouble with the fourth one in the list, which applies at all times in all areas; note also that the fifth rule only comes into play for *improvements* to wikipedia herself.
Although they seemed rude, folks putting up articles for deletion, and causing you lots of problems, were in fact improving wikipedia. They understand the WP:NOTEWORTHY rules, and the difference between that and WP:N. While we are here, let's do lesson two: which one, wikiNoteworthy or wikiNotable, makes Kelly notable enough to deserve a dedicated article in wikipedia? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
open book test, for lesson two
Some particular fact, in order to be *mentioned* in an existing article, such as the Ed Asner article, must be found in a Reliable Source that mentions the fact.
Note that this is special wikiJargon, with a special meaning of wikiReliable. Simply being *true* is not good enough: the fact must have been published. However, nowadays it is *easy* for almost anybody to publish almost anything, on their blog, on some press release, through a vanity press like Amazon, or similar things. If you want your fact in wikipedia, you need to find somebody who was published in newspapers/teevees/magazines (offline or online) that has a professional editorial department to perform fact-checking.
Alternatively, you might be able to find some academic paper/journal/similar, that was peer-reviewed by folks in that field. In *very* rare cases, you can quote directly from the people involved: for instance, if some actor X says (on their personal blog) that they are working with some director Y, and over on the director's personal blog they also confirm they are working with actor X, then you have a WP:NOTEWORTHY fact, suitable for mentioning in some existing article, about the actor, or about the director.
There is a big difference between being Noteworthy ... which only requires passing mention ... and being Notable (by the special wikiJargon definition of that term). To have a dedicated article, the topic must be Notable in the wikipedia sense: significant in-depth coverage (at least a couple paragraphs specifically about the topic) in multiple Reliable Sources (newspaper/teevee/magazine/academia). This is much harder to achieve than mere wikiNoteworthy-ness. For example, if you are an actress, and you are mentioned (name-dropped) in a couple news-articles about *other* topics, then she might qualify as wikiNoteworthy... but unless there have been *several* news-articles that cover the actress *specifically* and with some level of depth, the actress will not get a dedicated article about themselves, yet.
Of course, keep your scrapbook open; sooner or later, if you are careful in keeping track of press (positive or negative -- makes no difference), sooner or later the actress will qualify for a dedicated article. WP:DEADLINE applies here: wikipedia is for the ages. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly would be be wikiNoteworthy to be mentioned in an article. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being noteworthy is not the same as being worthy of an own article. If someone is noteworthy he/she can be mentioned in an article about some other subject (provided the noteworthyness is supported by proper sources), but to have an own article requires a much higher degree of notability than being just noteworthy. Kelly Baugher might be noteworthy, i.e. notable enough to be mentioned in an article about something or someone else, but consensus here on WP is that she is not notable enough to have an article about herself here. Thomas.Wtalk to me 23:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand in what content is considered by WP:NOTEWORTHY now after learning this. I will promise to abide by these rules and in a case of an article on Ed Asner, I will make sure my references are all reliable sources. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, when adding or editing people on a biographical living person, I will promise to add them to already existing pages if they are mentioned elsewhere in a reference that supports an existing company or person. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds like we're making progress. You do not have to promise to add folks to existing pages unreservedly... sometimes, people pop instantly into fame (child stars or winners of talent-gameshows or somesuch) and have multiple significant in-depth Reliable Sources, practically overnight. There are some caveats like WP:NOTNEWS, and also WP:BLP1E, but in some cases a person can attain insta-wikiNotability.
The only other main thing that I think needs to be crystal clear is the definition of Reliable Sources. If the stuff is self-published, or is published by people that are being paid to publish it, then typically that does not count as a Reliable Source, according to wikipedia standards. We like fact-checked stuff, published by places with professional editorial staff, willing to put their real names and their legal reputations on the line. Newspapers are reliable (including online ones that qualify). Magazines, ditto. Television, usually, although getting on the nightly news might not be good enough. Radio, ditto (replace "nightly news" with instead 24/7 talkshows). Getting on *youtube* or local-cable-access-teevee is not good enough; getting on a podcast is (usually) not good enough, either. But in particular, press releases -- even when republished by some PR organization -- never count. You can, for uncontroversial straightforward facts, use the statements by the BLP themselves, *about* themselves, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Anyways, newspaper/magazine/teevee/radio with editorial fact-checking: that defines Reliable Sources, which almost never includes facebook/blogs/gossip/forums/youtube/etc. Of course, we also want sentences in wikipedia to be truthful, but that is secondary to whether they can be verified. Does all this make sense? :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this makes sense. I understand what a reliable source is now. I will be more prudent about putting up references for articles and make sure they abide by such rules as stated above and in the Wikipedia guidelines. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Juliette Brindak 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. FiddleFaddle 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddle I would like to contest the nomination of speedy deletion of the article Juliette Brindak because the article is relying heavily on sources that are not paid and only about the subject and the company the person in the article is about. This article on a noteable biographical living person is considered by Wikipedia guidelines to be worthy of an article. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will place your comments on the article's talk page. There is nothing in the article to indicate her notability. That is the problem. FiddleFaddle 08:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fiddle. I did not do enough research on the biographical person in the article, but provided noteable links. If I can be accepted back to editing in Wikipedia, I am more than happy to read the articles more thoroughly and add more details. Another editor could also pull more information from the references I put up on the article Juliette Brindak.PrincessKannapolis (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is something to learn from this, too. It is that no matter how strident you have been, and you have been strident in the extreme on my talk page, a discussion I suggest you look at again and consider well, that I, at least, am wholly even handed in my dealings. So are most other editors. The issue you presented was that getting your attention was impossible, but your editing was so out of line that getting your attention was essential. Wikipedia is not all it appears. It is most assuredly not a gentle place, nor is it an easy place to work. If you choose well then it can be fun and a decent hobby. Choose badly and it bites hard.
The Brindak article was not deleted, though my view is that it still deserves to be as an article. Notable links do not make an article. The lady herself has some notability, but the article does not state it, and needs a serious rewrite, something I am not going to attempt. I hope very much that she is not another of your friends. If she is, leave the article to its fate, whatever that fate may be. FiddleFaddle 08:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fun place to add new information that you learn on noteable people. Ok, great! No, I like to research new companies and founders and came across her profile. There is another article on a new young business entrepreneur that I think needs an article now that I would like to add, but I can't because I am still currently blocked. There's a company Evan Spiegel runs that Facebook just offered $3 Billion and he turned it down. I'm sure he could be worth an article as well with his noteability. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is. However I still commend the discussion you started on my talk page to you.
When and if you achieve unblocking, I suggest that you use the WP:AFC route for a while in creating new articles. It is slower, but a more reliable way of learning your trade than firing new articles into space. FiddleFaddle 09:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, alright. Thank you for the tip and I will most definetely check it out for additional articles if I get back up and running here. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on File:Justin Murdock.png 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://tracymurdock.com/tmid/editorial_04.html. 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. ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PrincessK, it looks like you are close to ready, with one final hurdle, WP:PUPPET.
some advice on honesty being the best policy
This one is not as easy as the earlier lessons, because folks around here are super-damn-touchy about it, and have no tolerance for beginners making the mistake... although, of course, almost all beginners make this mistake, especially if they get blockerized in a way they feel is unfair. I could give you the whole history... okay that's wrong, I could give you a miniscule portion of the whole history, that I have observed or inferred, but I'll save you the pain and just cut to the way things are.
0. Socks are the Worst. Thing. Evah. Some socks are like imaginary friends wp:sockpuppet, and some are like real-world people who happen to agree with you, wp:meatpuppet.
1. Every human must use an individual login -- folks using an IP address, never to be trusted, presumption is they are socks.
2. If you ever forget to login, and edit as an anon, then you are a sock, because you just were socking (T.Y.A.A.S. B.Y.J.W.S.).
3. If you ever use another device, such as your friend's/coworker's computer who also edits wikipedia, your tablet, or the library kiosk, and forget to login to your unique username, Tyaas Byjws.
4. If you are working on an article, or voting on AfD/AfC/similar, and you ask your real-world friend/coworker to also comment or also vote on that article, Tyaas Byjws.
5. There is a related phenomenon called wp:canvassing, which is when you wikiverse friends/co-editors to also comment or also vote on that article, which is not technically socking but seriously frowned upon, and doubly-super-seriously-frowned-upon if you ever were a sock.
Specific to your situation.
Never forget to login as PrincessK. This is hard. If you get a new PC, or switch to a tablet, or use the library computer, or install chromium instead of firefox as your browser... you gotta login. If you forget, you can still click edit, and you can still click save, but since your PrincessK username will not be attached, you just turned into a sock.
Never let somebody else use PrincessK. Your mom, you friends, and especially your co-workers.
Nevah evah use your coworker's/friend's pseudonym... nobody can impersonate you, and you cannot impersonate anybody else.
If you are working for a company (or getting ready to start a company), and you plan to edit anything even remotely related to the industry, better disclose it right on your userpage and right on your talkpage.
Hey, I'm princessK, I'm going to film school (or went to film school), I'm getting ready to start a company in the entertainment industry (or have started said company), and I work with the following people at the company -- Mstanton617, otherUsernameYouMayHire, et cetera. We sometimes login from the same two physical locations, but we are individual humans, and we do not engage in meatpuppetry with each other's work, we coordinate with each other to keep from voting in the same places, and to keep from working on the same articles. Here is a list of our real-life clients that have paid us to do PR work for them: (empty right now... and some wikipedians do not fill this in... but are careful to use the talkpage and to state *on* the talkpage that they have COI). Here is a list of real-life contacts that we are friends with, and therefore have personal COI problems: (Kelly goes here since you have already mentioned her ... but as with paid clients this list is sometimes better left blank ... because you are going to know a *ton* of people in hollywood someday with any luck ... and rather than list them all better to just promise that you will only use talkpages for folks you are friendly with, and stick to that promise like a rock.)
Now, officially, spilling your life story, every person you ever worked with, every friend you ever had, is not required. But, now that you have made a series of mistakes, and made a bunch of experienced wikipedians (who through no fault of your own were already super-sensitive on the topic) worry that you are some hyper-megalomaniacal-evil-corporate-supergenius, there will be people who say you must put your mother's maiden name and the routing number to your bank account on your wikipedia userpage before they will trust you.
You don't have to do that. But you do have to understand that wikipedia is under stress right now. There are not enough people helping. (Many of them run for the hills after all their articles are deleted and they get perma-banned... imagine that!) But as FiddleFaddle says, this is a good place. You are smart enough and tough enough to stay, I'm reasonably convinced. But you need to decide how you can proceed safely within the hardline-socking-policy. I can advise you, but cannot decide for you. My advice is simple: only edit from one device. Never edit the same article -- and especially never vote on the same article -- as somebody who works with you, or is your real-life friend. You can both edit the talkpages of the same articles... but it is risky, you do not want to look like you and your co-workers are trying to pull wp:meatpuppet tricks to fake consensus. Effectively, you need to have one person assigned to each 'client' (which includes friends who might someday be clients once your startup is bigger than google :-)
I do not recommend -- except for listing Kelly -- that you put down your real-world friends, or your real-world clients, or whatever. But for the next twelve months, recommend you tread lightly here on wikipedia, and do your best to win by yielding. Anyways, write some comments here on whether you understand this whole socking-thing, promise to use one and only one username, promise to never *fail* to login as that username, promise to never edit as anybody else or let anybody else edit as you, and explain what meatpuppetry is and how you will avoid becoming involved in any such thing. Ask questions too, if anything I said here is unclear to you; I'll let Thomas and Fiddle and everybody give you the answers, they know them better than me. Then, I expect you'll be unblocked, a wiser and fire-tested wikipedian. You are always free to message my talkpage personally, and of course WP:TEAHOUSE is open 24/7.
p.s. When you get unblocked, and are being careful, but you catch yourself doing something wrong, immediately confess right here on this talkpage. If you make some edit at the library without logging in, then notice when you get home some library IP number making comments, create a new section here on this talkpage, explain you were at the library and forgot to login, list the IP of the library-account, and then click save. Prolly you should then go back to the edit-history of the library-IP, and retroactively "sign" the library-edits with your princessK username, so nobody will be confused about talkpage-consensus or whatever, but the important part is linking your PrincessK username, to the edits you made from the library, so that you are not later (sometimes much later) accused of socking. And of course, if you make a mistake, and somebody else catches you, then just be nice, and be honest, and you'll be fine. :-)
Hope this helps. Look forward to seeing you around. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 74,
Also known as a sock, but the above terms because you are not logged into a username. Shame on you! Joking...
I understand what meatpuppetry and socking are and will steer clear of that by logging in always to my username. This will be the only username I use. I will never edit under someone else and pretend to be them nor let anybody I may work with in the future edit as me. This will take care of any confusion with meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry.
I will also always make reference if I login to another computer or IP address on my talk page so that there is no confusion about who edited an article. I will be very careful with the articles I edit so that I can build some clout on Wikipedia and my account that I am a trusted Wikipedia article editor.
Yup, accused often of being a puppet. :-) Which is a fine joke when you speak with me, I laughed, though in general it is a serious accusation, and you'll have to stick to joking with people who already know you well -- too easy to offend over the text-only-interwebs! You can see how FiddleFaddle handled it quietly, which was just right... they asked somebody with checkuser, the "magic" wiki-tool that investigates past history of usernames. Methinks you'll find they are wise in the ways of wikipedia, so if you are worried about this or that, feel free to ask for advice from them, or from me of course.
But seriously, I edit from an IP, and only from an IP, for philosophical reasons. Most folks begin their editing careers as anons, and some never stop. Once you start to edit from a username, however, you basically have to keep editing from that username -- especially if you do get in hot water for editing from your friend's computer before you learned all the rules, ahem. ;-) I will ping Yunshui, and see whether they agree that you have snatched the pebble. p.s. Use your new skills for The Good; that will lead to trust. Thanks for improving wikipedia; see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, ok. Thank you for the advice. I will be cautious of joking terms in serious accusations on Wikipedia terminology. PrincessKannapolis (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome!
Hello, PrincessKannapolis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Secretaccount 13:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked you as long as you avoid the articles on your friends and family you are fine. If you continue with your WP:COI editing I will reblock you. Here is a proper welcome as I don't think you ever got one. If you need further advise feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks Secretaccount 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias, Secret (and Yunshui and Tim-aka-FiddleFaddle). She was welcomed by hostbot, with a link to WP:TEAHOUSE for fast answers to quick questions (which good advice I promptly hid on arrival to focus attention), but now she has the full marching-band. Most of the links are good, but with her newfound knowledge, and the five pillars, she should be ready to face the wikiverse once again. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So! Once again free to roam, uhh, freely. :-) You wanna gab about the colons-thing, or help me get info from Rockypedia and Schmidt about which sources are legit for the film biz? Or, if you'd rather try Something Completely Different, there are some mini-projects I know about that need a helping hand, good for practice. Or just do your own thing, and feel free to drop in whenever you need anything. I'm flexible. <grin> Glad to have you back, don't forget your lessons, and hey, remember to *enjoy* yourself whilst waltzing through the green grass of wiki-freedom. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask because 74 has expended a great deal of time and effort preparing your path. FiddleFaddle 23:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am wondering now, since you are not back even though you have been unblocked is whether Lady Macbeth is relevant here. Now, since you have the absolute right not to edit Wikipedia I can't say I am concerned, but simple politeness, something that was absent in your tirade on my talk page, would suggest that you might at least thank 74. :) FiddleFaddle 22:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh pfffffftttttttttt. <wipes slobber off laptop screen> <ewuuwwww> TimFiddly, you are such a stickler for propriety! PrincessK need not *thank* anybody for coerced training by blockerizoo-wiki-fiat. Didn't you ever have to go to school, and be forced to memorize the list of bordering-political-entities for some bit of land under a reigning poo-bah — uhhh... no offense to your own kingdom PrincessK which I'm sure is quite lovely and well-ordered — plus what their major products were? That's such a throwback to the days when place X would invade their neighbor Y, in order to acquire some particular industrial commodity, or control the flow thereof. Good thing nothing like that happens anymore! :-/ Oh wait... there was that... nevermind.
ANYHOO, no apologies are necessary, and no thanks, and no nothing. PrincessK is welcome to edit any time she pleases, now or many moons from now, at her own leisure, sticking to the five pillars as best she can, and not worrying about propriety or wiki-politics or any such cruft, and if she makes some mistake, just apologize, correct the behavior, and move the redacted redacted onward. All that garbage upstairs is behind us now, PrincessK can collapse it or archive it or just click edit and delete the whole thing. Boldly face forward into the wiki-future, assume good faith, WP:AAGF, and all that. Plus WP:IMAGINE, my new favorite. Hope this helps, see you both later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
